[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# Re: anyone ever gotten xerox to clarify the MOO license before?

- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 14:39:54 PST
- From:
- CC: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
- In-reply-to: <3.0.32.19970108170941.00697b04@popd.netcruiser> (message from Eric Mercer on Wed, 8 Jan 1997 14:09:49 PST)

    It would seem to me that since the MOO code is a derivitive work based
    on a previous work by Stephen White, aka ghond, that if he were to GPL
    the original work, then that would solve the whole problem for once
    and for all: Xerox would either have to make MOO fall under the terms
    of the GPL, or not distribute MOO.  But it is too late for them to not
    distribute MOO, since that has already been done.

    Furthermore, MOO has openly been "out there" for a number of years,
    and is well documented both in the computer technical literature, and
    also in various sociological scholarly works.  I don't see that
    whether the lawyers at Xerox will admit to anything or not has a thing
    to do with it!

    --
    --------  "And there came a writing to him from Elijah"  [2Ch 21:12]  --------
    Robert Jay Brown III  rj@eli.wariat.org  http://eli.wariat.org  1 847 705-0424
    Elijah Laboratories Inc.;  37 South Greenwood Avenue;  Palatine, IL 60067-6328
    -----  M o d e l i n g   t h e   M e t h o d s   o f   t h e   M i n d  ------

References:

- Re: anyone ever gotten xerox to clarify the MOO license before?

- From: Eric Mercer <mercere@netcom.ca>

- Prev: Re: anyone ever gotten xerox to clarify the MOO license before?
- Next: Re: anyone ever gotten xerox to clarify the MOO license before?
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index