"John Halton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 31/10/2007, Asheesh Laroia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "I myself do not care what people do with the patch as > > long as they don't claim ownership." > > As has been pointed out in the bug report thread, it would be better > for all concerned if the author could just come out with a slightly > more positive statement - "permissive", rather than just > "non-restrictive", as it were.
Yes. An explicit grant of license, instead of an "I myself do not care what people do" which gives only *implicit* license. Those in communication with the author could suggest license terms that explicitly provide the terms that seem to be implicit in the author's words — in this case, I'd suggest the terms of the Expat license <URL:http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt>. -- \ "Better not take a dog on the space shuttle, because if he | `\ sticks his head out when you're coming home his face might burn | _o__) up." -- Jack Handey | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
