On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 01:05:51PM -0600, Mike Miller wrote: > I'm sorry Chad, but a single word from someone I don't know who goes > by the pseudonym "Wookimus" doesn't do it for me. I'd like to read > all of this sometime: > > http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070114093427179 > > I don't know Brendan Scott but I have the impression that he is an > attorney, and he is certainly an expert on this topic. Here is some > info about him: > > http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070114093427179#sdfootnote1sym Who pissed in your Wheaties today, Mike Miller? Thanks for the link, but you can keep your attitude in check. > Like you, I am not an attorney, but it seems to me that the license > shown there requires that "redistributions" stick with the original > agreement. I don't see anything about what we might call > "relicensing." Ahh, so we're being pedantic now. I suppose that qualifies given that this discussion involves licences, copyright, and law. Thank you for pointing out exactly why IANAL nor would I ever want to be. For future reference, Mike, consider all discussion on the list an opinion and not legal advice. In fact, even lawyers preface their discussions with "IAAL, but don't consider this legal advice" and essentially, "Go pay a lawyer to give you advice within that capacity." Let's try to keep tclug-list a helpful resource, leaving the attitudes checked in at the door. You've generally been helpful and have had interesting things to say, but I'm perfectly happy sending email to /dev/null, just like the good ol' days on NNTP. -- Chad Walstrom <chewie at wookimus.net> http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20070227/6dce55a9/attachment.pgp