Nebula 2/Nebula Two.iso/SourceCode/MiscKit1.7.1/MiscKitArchive.mbox/mbox/[e-mail]_Tue Oct 19 16:55 MDT 1993.msg

Internet Message Format | 1994-10-30 | 2KB

Received: from uucp6.netcom.com by alaska.et.byu.edu; Tue, 19 Oct 93 16:55:13 -0600
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from TetraSoft.com by netcomsv.netcom.com with UUCP (4.1/SMI-4.1)
    id AA20602; Tue, 19 Oct 93 15:53:50 PDT
Received: by occam.TetraSoft.com (NeXT-1.0 (From Sendmail 5.52)/NeXT-2.0)
    id AA16459; Tue, 19 Oct 93 15:45:02 PDT
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 15:45:02 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.95)
Received: by NeXT Mailer (1.95)
To: [e-mail] (Don Yacktman), [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Comment on the MiscKit license
Status: RO

Disclaimer: I am no lawyer.  (Also, please add that to my previous message which Don forwarded! :-)

After looking into copyright technicalities further, I have discovered that my "dual" copyright notion is (apparently) wrong.  If I understand it properly, the GNU License is just a license from the original author.  Presumably (?), this licensing approach would be appropriate for MiscKit as well.  In this case, the original author retains "the" copyright (in contradiction to what I, at one point, implied in my message to Don), and FSF/MiscKitGroup merely licenses from the author.  FSF/MiscKitGroup then sub-license the software to their users (under the terms of their own licenses).

(An obvious alternative to the licensing approach would be for the author to "transfer" all rights to FSF/MiscKitGroup, but then the author would lose his/her own rights to his/her own work!  Obviously, that might put a damper on submissions! 1/2 :-)

Sorry for any confusion.

= Joe =

p.s., as I said, I am no lawyer.  Take with (yet another :-) grain of salt.