Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Jun 2011 14:23 UTC, submitted by Valhalla
Thread beginning with comment 477404
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
cmchittom,
"Hypothetically, Microsoft could do that, yes. The cases are different because that's not what the GPL says. Again: 'derivative work' is a legal term explicitly defined in copyright law."
I don't know if I want to touch this again, but this is mixing up two separate points. The fact that our documents are not derived from MS sources has no bearing on whether MS can legally specify the types of documents we are permitted to work on under a public/educational Word license.
In the same vein, a visual studio license would have the right to limit our use to non-commercial code, regardless of whether our source code is legally derived from anyone else's.
Edited 2011-06-16 14:27 UTC