From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: GMGPL (was Improved version (2002/1/26) of MT19937 PRNG)
Date: 9 Feb 2002 19:52:25 -0800
Date: 2002-02-10T03:52:26+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0202091952.90b61c4@posting.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: a42dlo$a2g2@news.cis.okstate.edu
David Starner <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:<a42dlo$a2g2@news.cis.okstate.edu>...
> > But I thought GMGPL (or/and GPL?) supposed to be
> > standard? Why exist the authors' own interpretation of
> > GMGPL, if any?
>
> Just standard legal reality. If you disagree with how
> someone is using your code, you get to chose whether to
> sue them or not.
I think you have caused some confusion here, it is the
copyright holder, not the author who might or might not
object. Furthermore, it is generally unlikely that a copyright holder
will agree in advance that some usage
which is not clearly defined is or is not correct. The
proper advice is to read the license, and make sure you
follow the requirements of the license (the same advice
that applies with Microsoft, you hardly expect microsoft
to reassure individual users in advance that their planned
use of Microsoft software is OK :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-10 3:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-02-05 10:24 Improved version (2002/1/26) of MT19937 PRNG Adrian Hoe
2002-02-05 16:47 ` Pascal Obry
2002-02-05 21:35 ` Hugo Pfoertner
2002-02-08 1:43 ` GMGPL (was Improved version (2002/1/26) of MT19937 PRNG) Adrian Hoe
2002-02-08 21:41 ` Ted Dennison
2002-02-09 1:55 ` Adrian Hoe
2002-02-09 5:56 ` David Starner
2002-02-10 3:52 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
2002-02-09 19:50 ` Wes Groleau
2002-03-02 3:39 ` Improved version (2002/1/26) of MT19937 PRNG Adrian Hoe
2002-03-07 2:16 ` Adrian Hoe
2002-03-11 2:35 ` Adrian Hoe
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox