On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:53:08 -0400, Warp wrote:

> 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.

It's about the author's freedom to know where their code is being used.  
Like I said, perhaps a bit convoluted in thinking, but it makes sense to 
me.

>   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.)

Sure, but it is more difficult to prove copyright infringement in 
situations where the code isn't open.

Not that it's impossible.  Just much more difficult.

Jim

Post a reply to this message