On 12/28/07, wouter van ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> wrote:
> > You are splitting again the wire in four.
> > For a source code or a schematic published on the web there
> > is no protection. Once you have published it, is not yours
> > anymore no matter as many GPL notice you may add. Even a half
> > page of GPL claims. Try to understand that once for ever. You
> > have no control for a project you are sharing on the web.
> > Claiming as " forbidden to be used for production" is just a
> > stupid phrase. The only protection you may have is keeping
> > secret the IP and even than some people may write a better IP
> > than you have initially written.
>
> There are four ways to look at this protection issue: practical versus
> theroretical, and from the author or from a user/pirate. Vasile's view
> is correct (although a bit overstated) for the practical + from the
> author look. But when seen from a user it is very reassuring to know
> that what you use (and how you use it) is licensed in a way that it
> allows you that use, so the discussion is not useless.
>
> Vasile: I got plenty mails from people who wanted to use Jal (my old
> Jal) but did not dare to do so because I (mistakenly) put LGPL on the
> libraries.

How many comes from China, Brasil, Argentina or from the East of the Europe ?
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist