John Souvestre wrote:
> 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.
If that last email didn't clarify, then forget it. It isn't worth
hashing it out over and over again.
> And do any say that the patch is owned by someone different than the owner of
> the program being patched?
None that I have seen because everyone is exploiting a broken copyright
system. Of course most the companies that release those patches would
not admit if a third party wrote the patch.
If a third part, that was not for hire, wrote the patch and the owner of
the program to be patched claims ownership of said patch, they are
indeed claiming ownership of someone else's work.
> Your terminology. My point was that is no such thing as a "commercial" subset
> of EULAs.
I'll clarify then. EULAs on commercially produced software - Windows,
Solaris and the like. That better?
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