To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
>From: "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>The libedc_ecc source code did not contain such a LICENSE file (in
>>fact no license file at all) at the time I fetched it. I was in contact
>>with Heiko at that time and he also did not mention any restrictions.
>>Of course this does not excuse my mistake - I should have explicitly
>>asked for placing it under GPL.
>This brings up a different twist then. If the source code did
>not contain any license file at all, and did not have any license
>in any of the files, it would IMHO be licenseless. Wether or not
>the law would interpret it to be public domain, and hence useable
>however, or the law would interpret it to be unuseable without a
>specific license and require you to contact the author to get a
>specific license statement, would likely vary greatly from
>country to country, and jurisdiction to jurisdiciton. That would
>be one for a copyright/patent lawyer to answer.
You seem to have funny ideas about legal issues....
If I put my bag on a table and turn my head, do you really believe
tat you may take it just because there is no name plate on it?
If some piece of software does not come with a license note, this
only means that you have to ask the owner of the Authorship rights
and/or the Utilisation rights about terms of use and redistribution
rights.
Andreas did ask Heiko and got ther permission to use the library
with his project. The fault of Andreas was that he did not propagate
the information he received from Heiko.
Instead he put a GPL COPYING file into the toplevel directory.
This makes users assume that all code "below" the toplevel directory
is GPL code which is definitely wrong.
Regarding "public domain": as it is now allowed to put code into the
public domain, it is obvious that your idea cannot apply.
>GPL'd software can have non-GPL'd parts, so long as the licensing
>terms of the other parts do not add any additional restrictions
>on the usage of the source code beyond what the GPL states. This
>is what allows you for example to use BSD (without the
>advertising clause) licensed code in GPL programs directly. The
>BSD license is "freer" than the GPL, so GPL'd software can use
>BSD licensed code in it. The BSD license that has the
>advertising clause however is incompatible with the GPL because
>it creates an additional restriction that must be met, and that
>conflicts with section 6 of the GPL, which states that you may
>not impose additional restrictions on the work licensed under the
>GPL.
Wrong (see my other mail).
In addition note: the BSD license carries other restrictions than
the GPL. If your postulation would be correct, then you would never be allowed
to merge GPL and BSD code.
[ rest deleted because it did not include anything new or halfway corect ]
J�rg
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
