Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Oh, I misunderstood - I thought *you* were saying that there was only one 
> definition for "free", not the FSF.  I don't disagree with your points 
> from that point of view, though I think the FSF's usage of "Free" is that 
> authors are "free" to not have their work incorporated into another 
> product that's closed source - ie, they're free to know where their code 
> is being used.  That is perhaps a bit more convoluted.

  That sound to me more like the code is protected by the license. Not
too much to do with freedom per se.

  Btw, no license throws away the original copyright, nor allows it to
me removed in derivative works. (Even if some license did that, it may
be legally questionable in many countries. Copyright is not something
you can get rid of easily.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message