From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6d608a86e65c95d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-04-06 04:00:30 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Source licensing (was Re: Ada Stuff and some confusion Message-ID: <1D35mHueaL2B@eisner.encompasserve.org> References: Organization: LJK Software Date: 6 Apr 2001 07:00:24 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.44.122.34 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 986554828 216.44.122.34 (Fri, 06 Apr 2001 11:00:28 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 11:00:28 GMT Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:6554 Date: 2001-04-06T07:00:24-05:00 List-Id: In article , "Mark Lundquist" writes: > It doesn't mean that. We're talking about original *source*code* that you > yourself will author, right? Well, the only possible way any software > license could have any bearing on that would be if one of the tools you used > to *write* the source code (like an editor, or the operating system) was > licensed to you under conditions imposed on the work product you generate > using the tool, in which case (a) I have no idea whether such a condition > would be legally enforceable (but I rather doubt it); (b) nobody would > release a tool under such a license (because nobody else in turn would use > it, since the point of editors for example is to produce works that you > own), I think the VMS Hobbyist license provides a counter-example to those two, giving free access to the operating system only for non-commercial uses (for which there is a lot more boilerplate). Lots of people sign up for those restrictive terms for home (which is where it must be located) machines. So popularity is not an issue, and as for enforceability, it would seem that Compaq's lawyers feel it is enforceable.