interesting point, does a contract alleging all workdone by the contractor belongs to the contractee apply to a GPL product in pre-release stages?
thanx,
bill
FUD FUD FUD FUD
- (drewk)
- (19)
- March 16, 2005, 10:33:59 PM EST
The first bit is right.
- (admin)
- (17)
- March 16, 2005, 10:38:52 PM EST
Really?
- (drewk)
- (15)
- March 16, 2005, 10:41:41 PM EST
Shouldn't matter.
- (admin)
- (1)
- March 16, 2005, 10:59:53 PM EST
If you _give_ the contractor the code, maybe.
- (imric)
- March 17, 2005, 07:10:21 AM EST
The right definition of distribute is set by copyright law
- (ben_tilly)
- (12)
- March 17, 2005, 11:05:32 AM EST
Yes it would
- (jake123)
- (11)
- March 17, 2005, 05:29:22 PM EST
Doesn't GPL prohibit additional terms?
- (drewk)
- (8)
- March 17, 2005, 05:48:05 PM EST
This is a FAQ.
- (Another Scott)
- (7)
- March 17, 2005, 06:03:41 PM EST
Note that this disagrees with Jake's understanding above.
-NT
- (ben_tilly)
- March 17, 2005, 06:18:23 PM EST
That contradicts what Jake said
- (drewk)
- (5)
- March 17, 2005, 06:22:38 PM EST
Various corrections
- (ben_tilly)
- (4)
- March 17, 2005, 06:58:58 PM EST
So do you agree with Scott's assessment?
- (drewk)
- (3)
- March 17, 2005, 09:14:59 PM EST
Yes. Mostly.
- (ben_tilly)
- (2)
- March 17, 2005, 10:26:48 PM EST
In that case, you're being compelled
- (drewk)
- (1)
- March 17, 2005, 10:35:25 PM EST
That's the idea - but how far does that go?
- (ben_tilly)
- March 17, 2005, 10:45:18 PM EST
You didn't do your research very well?
- (ben_tilly)
- (1)
- March 17, 2005, 06:16:35 PM EST
Okay, so we use the Copyright definition of distribute
- (drewk)
- March 17, 2005, 06:24:11 PM EST
what about an IP statement that all contractors sign
- (boxley)
- March 17, 2005, 07:46:40 AM EST
I think it's half right
- (Arkadiy)
- March 17, 2005, 09:19:14 AM EST