Subject: Re: copyright questions
To: Phil Knaack <email@example.com>
From: Ted Lemon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/13/1997 10:30:15
> >Unfortunately (for your argument), past behaviour _must_ be examined
> >in addition to current behavior when trying to figure out what future
> >behaviour is likely to be.
> So what you're saying is .. you hold grudges.
No, what he's saying is that past behaviour can be used to predict
future behaviour. Have we gotten an apology out of the OpenBSD crowd
for their past behaviour? No. Why should we assume that their
future behaviour will be any different, if they are given the
opportunity to repeat it? For all we know, the reason Chris is now
credited is *precisely* because of his Copyright. Take away the
Copyright, and you could well take away the credit. This may not be
so, but we have no evidence to support that assumption, and plenty of
evidence to support its opposite.
> Code under the BSD copyright is "freely distributable" given the
> "appropriate credits." You claim your stuff is also "freely distributable"
> given the "appropriate credits," but your definition of "appropriate credits"
> is different enough from the BSD copyright's definition as to make the
> concept of "freely distributable" in your copyright .. a farce.
Why don't you back this up with some evidence? You can certainly
make any random claim you want about anything, but you're not really
engaging in a constructive dialog if all you have to defend your
arguments is vigourous assertion.