Hi Jeremy.
> 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.
No, it doesn't. Most copyrights I have seen do not totally give up this right.
You can't say this and continue to talk about the GPL license, for example.
> > 1) Have you ever seen a copyright/license/EULA for a patch?
>
> Yes, I see them constantly.
And do any say that the patch is owned by someone different than the owner of
the program being patched?
> > 2) What makes one EULA "commercial" and another not?
>
> What makes it "commercial" or not is irrelevant.
Your terminology. My point was that is no such thing as a "commercial" subset
of EULAs.
Regards,
John
John Souvestre - Integrated Data Systems - (504) 355-0609
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/14/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST