Tino Didriksen writes: > On 24 July 2014 16:17, Anthony J. Bentley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Good point, but given the lack of any other information than COPYING, I > > > assume that it was the intention of the author to apply the license to > > all > > > applicable files using the example from COPYING - and this example does > > > include the "(at your option) any later version" part. I have no way of > > > knowing that the author intended to apply an edited version. > > > > > > The "any later version" is also the most common option due to everyone > > just > > > copying the example, so I feel doubly justified in assuming that as the > > > default. > > > > I think that is a really unsafe assumption. > > Context matters. The files are in the repository of a FOSS project, so one > can safely assume the files are under some open source license. This is > especially true as it's on SourceForge where all files must be open source. > Given that, the only mention one can find of an open license is in COPYING, > and logically follow from there. > > If it was a random folder found somewhere on the net, then any file without > an explicit license statement falls under "All Rights Reserved". But in the > given context, I don't see a problem.
Example: Some guy releases a game under the GPLv2. He sloppily copies in a video filter from a GPLv3 project. The file containing the video filter has no copyright statement. He's violating the law by including a file with incompatible licensing. People later download his project and assume the video filter is GPLv2-compatible. They unknowingly violate the law by using the filter in their own GPLv2 projects. Example: Some guy releases a small program. He says in the readme, "I want this code to be usable by anyone, so I'm releasing it under the GPL. You may not sell or profit from this work." Obviously the two statements conflict, since non-commercial clauses are incompatible with the GPL. Anyone looking at the code *must* assume the most restrictive statement, the non-commercial one, applies. Or simply not use the software at all because of the ambiguity. Both of these are based on real-world examples I've seen. Making assumptions about what the author meant *is not safe*. It *is not legal*. Being explicit about licensing, including which optional clauses of the GPL apply to a GPLed project, is vitally important. Otherwise we open ourselves up to potential legal liability, or prevent our code from being used by someone scared of potential legal liability. -- Anthony J. Bentley ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
