Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 10th Sep 2010 23:38 UTC
Permalink for comment 440518
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-05-19
Indeed.
If someone re-mixed music I made, sold it, and tried to restrict further re-use of that derivative work, I'd be furious!
I would then call my lawyer, and invoke the justice system to bring them in line, and probably re-allocate their filthy lucre to X or some other software project.
I wouldn't have a problem with selling it, that's a right granted by the license I chose. It's the re-use that's also granted to 3rd parties.
Same with software I'm involved with. See the recent BusyBox case(s).
Ideas are licensed.
Copyleft only works because of how (arguably over-)strong copyright became after 1976.
Similar ideas apply to patents, but the patent system is borked atm.