[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Copyright question (was: Proposal: Constant Tables)
- From: KHMan <keinhong@...>
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 18:54:29 +0800
On 8/14/2011 6:31 PM, Lars Doelle wrote:
From: Lorenzo Donati
-- Copyright (c) 2011 Lars Dölle
Anyway, to be fair, It wasn't necessary. I stand corrected, as you may
have read in another branch of this thread. Thus sorry for the noise.
Thus each and every source of cause contains such a note. For the posting
of the mail-list, i retained the copyright as an originator notice, and thought,
a license would be implicitly granted for use of discussion. [snip]
But if you are thinking to have some claim over any kind of
_mechanism_, then I think there are going to be *big* issues...
Now having a strong GPL background, i would not license my work under
MIT/X11 and wonder, if this would be considered a violation of habits,
thus making a publication partically useless. Could anyone please tell me
if there's a common position here on this matter.
Discussing mechanisms and talking about code with GPL? That's an
even bigger problem, a 30-ton brontosaurus.
Of course I have uses for GPL too, but I have huge reservations
about what you are doing.
How much of copyright law do you know?
I'll try to stay out of the discussion anyways.
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia