|Problems? Is your data what you think it is?|
Re^2: Responsibilities of a module authorby BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Nov 23, 2005 at 20:02 UTC||Need Help??|
Whilst I accept that my idea has no mileage, I would like to query one thing.
How does it "violate copyright", to branch a copy of artistic licenced code, or the various flavours of GPL licenced code?
I was not suggesting removing the authors copyright.
Only copying and modifying it and redistributing it, complete with all original laballing and packaging in place. Isn't that the essence of what these licences are intended to permit?
I'm not looking for an extended legal debate here, just confirmation or correction that my basic understanding is correct?
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.