"Violation"

[W. Yip]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:30:51 +1200, "j.Maxwell Legg" <income at ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
>W.Yip was referring specifically to alterations to a an old bare license that had no subject matter and was only a set of terms.

Hi. I am afraid you have misread me. I hope my subsequent postings serve to
clarify things. Primarily, I am attempting to reconcile conventional legal
understanding of the license to the radically permissive nature of the OSS
licenses. Conventional licenses are more restrictive, while OSS licenses
are so permissive, even 'viral', that the license threatens the very
foundations of the notion of copyright as property. 

I am not concerned here with alterations to the terms of a license, whether
bare or otherwise.