* Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> [120731 22:35]: > Correct but irrelevant. No one here has provided any evidence one way or > the other about whether Adobe has given a license. > > The sensible *default* assumption is that when an upstream asserts that the > license on their work is $foo, they know what they're talking about
This is true. > even > when portions are copyright other people/entities. If there is a hint to distrust what people claim about their work, I see no way how a judge could believe a "But I was told it is" if one did not at least check what hints one got. If someone claims he has a license from Adobe, then well, believe him unless you run into some statement from Adobe that they do not give away any licenses like that. If someone just claims it is under a free license but does not even refer to those parts having a different copyright, then it gets unlikely enough in my eyes that one has to assume the default of the law: no permission at all. And regarding >> Since Illustrator is frequently used for producing output files >> that are expected to be distributed, it would be reasonable to assume that >> the output is liberally licensed and that whatever license is listed in >> the package is in fact the correct one, with no other license attaching to >> this output. have you ever looked at some EULAs? A quick look at http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ makes me think this is quite unlikely. (If I read this correctly, some things you are allowed to embed, but only verbatimly and for specific purposes, but the limits are quite absurd and I'm not sure it even gives permission to distribute for all the stuff you find in some postscript files). Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120731224526.ga6...@client.brlink.eu
