Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 15:26:49 +0100 From: j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org> To: Dirk Myers <dirkm@teleport.com> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSD, .Net comments - any reponse to this reasoning? Message-ID: <20010702152649.A18127@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <20010701132353.W344@teleport.com>; from dirkm@teleport.com on Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 01:23:53PM -0700 References: <20010630174743.A85268@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010630173455.T344@teleport.com> <20010701032900.A93049@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <20010701132353.W344@teleport.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
| There's *no* license that can trump the rights of the copyright | holder. There's *no* license that can allow someone who doesn't own | the copyright to close off the code. But licenses which meet the | Open Source definition (let alone the Free Software definition) don't | allow the copyright holder to revoke the permissions in the license. So what you are saying, then, is that 'Free Software' in the FSF definition is not just GPL'ed, but also has the copyright signed over to the FSF so they can 'insure' that the code will remain forever GPL'ed? If so, that is damn scary. Jonathon -- Microsoft complaining about the source license used by Linux is like the event horizon calling the kettle black. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010702152649.A18127>