Aliaksei Sheshka <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Ben Finney <[email protected]>wrote: > > The grant needs to be explicit, written, specifying exactly what > > work is being licensed, in a statement from the copyright holder. > > Ideally of the form: > > > > This is <NAME OF WORK>, consisting of <SPECIFIC FILES>. You may > > <DO THESE SPECIFIC THINGS> with this work under the terms <FULL > > LICENSE TERMS OR UNAMBIGUOUS REFERENCE TO FULL LICENSE TERMS>. > > Does that count: > "Several parties hold copyright to various parts of IRRToolSet. One or more > of the following licenses may apply to the code contained within this > distribution." , or too unclear ?
It depends on who wrote it. If the copyright holders did not make that statement, it's worthless for the purpose of having a grant of license. “May apply” is of no help in knowing that one has a license, so isn't sufficient, IMO. The only statement which counts for this purpose, IMO, is an explicit written grant of license from the copyright holders of whatever part of the work is specified. If there are different license grants for different parts of the work, you need each grant to explicitly specify which parts the grant applies to. If you don't have that, my understanding is that you don't have an effective grant of license to the relevant parts. This may involve tedious work on your part in communicating with the copyright holders, to clarify which parts they grant what license to recipients. You need to keep careful track, to be sure that you don't distribute any part of the work without license grant from the copyright holders of that part. -- \ 己所不欲、勿施于人。 | `\ (What is undesirable to you, do not do to others.) | _o__) —孔夫子 Confucius (551 BCE – 479 BCE) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
