On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: > this is also the case for Nightly Builds, accessible by the > public; Legally they are "publishing to the public" (i.e. opposite of > 'for private use') and bound by licenses and agreements. > And finally, from Copyright law perspective, you are right that code > and text is effectively the same thing, but that code has a common > tendency to be depending on other work, introducing licensing into the > legal mix. I think it was Leo who also pointed out that Trademarks is > an additional legal aspect of it.
I have no idea what "it" you mean exactly, but I'm pretty sure I said nothing about nightly builds and I said nothing about trademarks. Here's some of what was said just a few e-mails back: > Doug: >> What's special about documentation? > Leo: > (...) Less legal risk (...), generally not subject to patent concern which I probably should not have said since I didn't back it up with a reasonable reference. Sorry about that. cheers, Leo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
