[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: More FSF hypocrisy
From: |
Hyman Rosen |
Subject: |
Re: More FSF hypocrisy |
Date: |
Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:35:48 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) |
Rjack wrote:
Truer words were never spoken.
No, those words are false. The obligations of the GPL are between
the copyright holder and the distributor. The distributees acquire
rights when the distributor tells them that the distribution is
covered by the GPL, because he has then promised them certain things.
(There's your promissory estoppel!) But if someone were to distribute
GPLed code without informing distributees of the license, they
themselves would have no recourse for obtaining the source code.
Only the rights holder could go after the distributor, for copyright
violation.
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, (continued)
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy,
Hyman Rosen <=
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/25
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Rjack, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Hyman Rosen, 2009/03/26
- Re: More FSF hypocrisy, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/03/26