BitKeeper licence critic
MJ Ray
markj at cloaked.freeserve.co.uk
Sun Mar 10 23:21:41 UTC 2002
Joerg Schilling <schilling at fokus.gmd.de> wrote:
> It oboiusly a miss interpretation!
They are obviously badly worded terms.
> You are not allowed to save a copy of the HTML version.
> So you cannot "have" the standard at home.
Where does it say about continued possession being required? Also, I have a
local cache, so it would be saved here, in effect.
> I believe it would be illegal in any country to charge for a publication
> that you only have been able to view.
I am not a lawyer. Are you?
> It is obvious that Mark simply does not like to view the standard :-(
I'm indifferent, actually. It was a mere curiousity to justify a point you
made and, as such, while I would go to a library to look something up, I
would not buy the book, especially not one without a marked price.
> .. If you participated the standard creation
== If I paid money to join, etc?
Anyway, what is the point of this paragraph?
MJR
More information about the Discussion
mailing list