On Jun 15, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 03:18:24PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Jun 15, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > *OR* inherits the default license of the project. >> >> You got any case law for this? Seriously, I could use this for >> FSFLA's IRPF2007-Livre project. >> http://fsfla.org/svnwiki/blogs/lxo/pub/freeing-the-lion
> Umm... What other license choices are there? Where does it say that there must be one? > No specific case law, but I'd expect serious [eventual] trouble for > somebody trying to slap some different license in such case. Consider this (to make the freeing-the-lion story short): Jar file with .class files, with a copy of LGPL in the root of the tree. No other license anywhere to be seen. Is it safe to assume the whole thing is under the LGPL? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
