Le 2011-09-27 à 21:49:00, Marvin Humphrey a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:34:43AM -0400, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
The pdextended license (GPL) doesn't say to which parts of the programme
it applies, and all the copyright/license notices I can find (in a bêta
of 42) are all BSD. Changes & additions to BSD code don't have to be
under the BSD license, thus if it's not stated, it's somewhat harder to
make any assumptions...
According to "Intellectual Property and Open Source" by Van Lindberg[1] (which
I highly recommend), a patch which is offered up on a mailing list or through
a patch tracker comes with an implicit grant of license to use it in the
project, […]
I understand that if a diff looks like it's not under a different license,
it will be taken as being under the same license, regardless of
intention... my concern wasn't about who would win in court, but rather
about the existence of confusion and disagreements. Keep in mind that I
was speculating about what might make Hans claim GPLv3 status while no
code bears the notice.
While copyright violations do not result in injunctions unless a
litigant appears, I do not believe it is in the interest of any project
to neglect the law.
My statement was not an endorsement of negligence...
I think that this is true of many (if not most) open/free projects.
I'm not comfortable with that generalization.
Oh, I'm not talking about the ones we're most likely to encounter, that
is, the big ones. Most projects are small, and in smaller projects, it's
more likely that people don't spend much time challenging their own
assumptions about how licenses work. I'm also not endorsing that
behaviour...
______________________________________________________________________
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
