| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
A new source of anti-GPL FUDA new source of anti-GPL FUDPosted Nov 22, 2003 13:51 UTC (Sat) by rev (guest, #15082)In reply to: A new source of anti-GPL FUD by stock Parent article: A new source of anti-GPL FUD I still don't understand what you you are trying to say here. Please explain. Would the situation be any diferent if this nice software package was released under, say, the X11 license? Or released in binary only form? I may be stupid but I honoustly do not grasp what point you are trying to make here. Maybe you trying to say that this programmer of yours, by releasing a reimplemtation of code he wrote for his former employer infringes on the copyrights of his former employer? That may be true, I don't know what his job contract with his former employer had to say about such issues, nor do I know what the law has to say about this. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that by doing so your programmer infringes the copyrights of his former employer. Well, if this is indeed the point you are trying to make, I still do not understand how this is GPL specific. Your programmer would infringe on his former employers's copyright irrespective of wheather he released his product in binary only form under the MS EULA, in binary only form under some other license, in source form under the GPL, the BSD license, the Artistic License, the Apache License or any other source license. Please elaborate.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||