9fans - fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [9fans] LPL Section 3C
@ 2006-07-15 15:08 Benn Newman
  2006-07-15 16:53 ` Eric Smith
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Benn Newman @ 2006-07-15 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

The Lucent Public License Version 1.02, in relevant part, states:
``In addition, each Contributor must identify itself as the originator of
its Contribution in a manner that reasonably allows subsequent Recipients
to identify the originator of the Contribution. Also, each Contributor
must agree that the additions and/or changes are intended to be a
Contribution. Once a Contribution is contributed, it may not thereafter be
revoked.''

I submited two patches (doc-man-1-patch-email and doc-man-1-fedex-new) but
I am not sure if I am complying with this paragraph. That could be fixed
by adding ``.\" Benjamin T. D. Newman contributed/is the original
contributor to/of this man page'' or something like that, but I have not
see that done anywhere. Should I have done that? Until the patches get
looked at (more specificaly, the email files chmod-ed o-rw) one would be
able to tell who sent the patch (well, not really because it is world
writable.)
-- 
Benn Newman


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] LPL Section 3C
  2006-07-15 15:08 [9fans] LPL Section 3C Benn Newman
@ 2006-07-15 16:53 ` Eric Smith
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Eric Smith @ 2006-07-15 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

Personally, the only time I read those is for entertainment.

But the way I see it, those licenses are for lawyers to write and
lawyers to read -- something to keep them busy.  After all, the United
States has 6% of the world's population but 70% of the world's
lawyers.  They need _something_ to do.

But these licenses aren't intended for anyone else (the way I see it)
-- it's like this:  if it's posted on the web, freely downloadable
without paying, then it's yours to have and do with as you please.

If someone doesn't want you to have it then they shouldn't have posted it.

In the case of your submissions, if someone doesn't want it they don't
have to take it.  How can they expect you to know how to apply that
legalese license to your work when you are not a lawyer?

How could anyone (you, me, anyone else) be expected to read one line
of a license unless they are a mouthpiece?  In a court of law I would
just say, "I don't know -- it's not written in English".

Just ignore them all.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2006-07-15 16:53 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-07-15 15:08 [9fans] LPL Section 3C Benn Newman
2006-07-15 16:53 ` Eric Smith

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).