Hi Jeremy.
> 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.
Rightfully so, if that haven't given up that right. If you take it upon
yourself to illegally build an addition to my house then I own it, not you. If
fact, I'll probably sue you for doing it. Are you going to claim that I'm
exploiting the trespass laws?
By the way, don't cut my grass either. You might think it's an improvement but
perhaps I don't. :)
> I'll clarify then. EULAs on commercially produced software - Windows,
> Solaris and the like. That better?
No. An EULA is an EULA regardless of how the software was produced. To imply
that the method used to produce the software in any way affects the owner's
rights is wrong.
Software is property. The owner calls the shots.
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