Re: just SCO but look at FSF....
From: Joe Dunning (joe_at_blahblah.invalid)
Date: 10/26/03
- Next message: Beryl Ervin: "dedicated to you sxy lumapmayd"
- Previous message: Tom Felker: "Re: just SCO but look at FSF...."
- In reply to: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: just SCO but look at FSF...."
- Next in thread: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: just SCO but look at FSF...."
- Reply: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: just SCO but look at FSF...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 03:25:06 GMT
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:34:08 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>Speaking of non-monetary transfers, there are also some unenforceable
>clauses found in many software licenses. All the AT&T/USL Unix source
>licenses included a clause demanding that any derivative work
>(enhancements and bug fixes) performed by the licensee must be
>supplied back to AT&T/USL for inclusion into the source code base.
I must have missed that. Care to tell me which section of the ATT/IBM
license agreement requires this?
- Next message: Beryl Ervin: "dedicated to you sxy lumapmayd"
- Previous message: Tom Felker: "Re: just SCO but look at FSF...."
- In reply to: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: just SCO but look at FSF...."
- Next in thread: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: just SCO but look at FSF...."
- Reply: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: just SCO but look at FSF...."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|