From owner-freebsd-advocacy Mon Oct 2 16:27:28 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (winston.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.27.229]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0B2B37B502; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winston.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e92NQvU77911; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:26:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com) To: Terry Lambert Cc: marko@FreeBSD.ORG (Mark Ovens), bright@wintelcom.net (Alfred Perlstein), will@physics.purdue.edu (Will Andrews), advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: stolen script? In-Reply-To: Message from Terry Lambert of "Mon, 02 Oct 2000 21:33:21 -0000." <200010022133.OAA11355@usr05.primenet.com> Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:26:57 -0700 Message-ID: <77907.970529217@winston.osd.bsdi.com> From: Jordan Hubbard Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > Anyone who takes the file out of context of the aggregation is > required to take the agregation copyright/license with it, if > the file has no other lixense permitting its use, otherwise. I would love to see what weird legal book you're reading out of. First you cite the Berne convention as essentially backwards from everything I've ever read on it, then you state an implicit copyright clause that I'm sure nobody is at all familiar with, much less follows. Can we get back to reality again in this discussion or see some URLs which support this line of thinking? It runs counter to everything I've heard to date. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message