Les Mikesell wrote:
A proprietary license gives some rights that you don't have without it;
If you are referring to a EULA: no it doesn't. Standard EULAs don't
grant any rights that copyright doesn't.
Furthermore, EULAs tend to restrict what you can *use* software for,
which is something that no Free Software license does. At all.
the GPL gives you some rights you don't have without accepting it. No
difference in that respect.
Under copyright law, if I give you a work of my own with no license or
contract, you may use the work however you like, but you may not
distribute it to anyone else.
The GPL allows you additional rights: you may distribute the work to
others. They receive the work with the same license that you were given.
Standard EULAs give you *no* additional rights, and furthermore restrict
how you can use the software that you received.
The difference is vast.
You are so far divorced from reality that I've suspected you of trolling
for the entire discussion. I wouldn't have replied, except that I'm
sure that *some* people actually believe some of the things you say, and
one of the goals of the Free Software movement is to educate people
about the truth of the matter.
But a proprietary license rarely demands
that you place restrictions on how other people can create new things
and share them.
Proprietary licenses place absolute and total restrictions on how people
can create and share new things based on the licensed work.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
