|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
I know about the Borland no-nonsense license statement from
a compiler package I bought (a while ago ;-) ).
Fully agreeing with the book comparability fairness I referenced the book
analogy here.
Also it is a *statement*, you do not have to agree explicitly. Just abide the
copyright law.
All hail "keep it simple"
But my question was, why no longer used ?
Should it be explictly in copyright law, that usage is granted when a copy is
legaly aqcuired ?
Once I read a problem with programs was they were copied into the computer, but
I think that is a false argument because when I read a book I transfer to short
term memory and to longterm memory and what have you neuron wise. Computer
analog transistor/magneto/capacitor memory.
That is ordinary intended usage, not distributing.
Maybe I misunderstand, but the whole copy right intention was about regulating
distribution. Not usage of the copy.
Being right or wrong here ?
And yes, for distribution ( of even modified version ) the phenomenon of
licensing would be in the right place. ( for instance GPL. )[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Indeed Borland - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 06:08 PM EDT
- To put succintly - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 06:33 PM EDT
- Indeed Borland - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 02:17 AM EDT
- Thanks - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 05:19 AM EDT
- Lending software on line - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 09 2013 @ 05:28 AM EDT
- Two ways... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 01:37 AM EDT
|
|
|
|