John Souvestre wrote:
> Hi Jeremy.
>
> > You have to operate on the assumption that the author permits patches.
>
> There is no need to make an assumption and to do so is unsafe. Some copyrights
> allow it and some don't. You should check first.
In the context of this discussion, for the purpose of brevity, it is
assumed that when someone is writing a patch, they have been given
permission to do so. We are not making the assumption that all
software authors given permission to patch. Perhaps that clarifies it.
> > One can legally write the software license to limit liability.
>
> When publishing an illegal patch? Sorry, but no. You are totally exposed.
Again, see above. Operate on the assumption that the original author
has authorized patching of his software.
> 1) Have you ever seen a copyright/license/EULA for a patch?
Yes, I see them constantly.
> 2) What makes one EULA "commercial" and another not?
What makes it "commercial" or not is irrelevant.
J
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/14/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST