For Approval: Academic Citing License
Rick Moen
rick at linuxmafia.com
Mon Sep 27 18:27:34 UTC 2004
Quoting Alex Rousskov (rousskov at measurement-factory.com):
> Which
> (a) confirms an obvious fact that many authors are clueless
> and
> (b) demonstrates "an understanding different from that of Rick Moen"
...an understanding that, moveover, differs from that of _copyright law_.
Thus my point.
Did you have one, other than to demonstrate poor judgement in targets
for badly conceived personal potshots?
> I hope you are not implying that only Public Domain projects on Source
> Forge misrepresent derivative work status?
I hope you are not unable to read and comprehend my earlier message in
which I point out misclassifications in all _three_ categories (or
unable to notice yourself searching a change of topic after having
miscalculated rather badly.)
But, since you raise the question, in my licence-audit of about 800 PalmOS
works claimed to be open source (including "public domain"), "public
domain" did indeed comprise an overwhelming majority of those with
serious licensing problems.
--
Cheers, "Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?"
Rick Moen -- Steven Wright
rick at linuxmafia.com
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list