On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Chris Watson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Sorry, no matter how noble the GNU folks might be, they can't change the > > copyright laws without the cooperation of the courts and/or the > > legislature, and it's not likely they'll be able to enlist the aid of > > either to defeat the longstanding tenet that "de minimis" copyright > > claims are not legitimate. You want to be careful not to mix copyright > > law with contract law. > > Also I might add, there is one known case where you are wrong on this. And > that is the BSD or FreeBSD License. These two licenses allow the GPL to be > placed in addition to the BSDL/FBSDL. Nothing in said licenses prevent it. > So while for most cases youre statement is true in the case of GPL'ing BSD > code it is not. Unfortunately :-/ What? How does anything you wrote support the assertion that changing a single letter of a work in the public domain entitles you to a legitimate copyright claim in the derived work? -- Bob Kline mailto:bkline at rksystems.com http://www.rksystems.com
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4