>>>>> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Jeroen Roovers wrote:

> 1) Again, it's not a license. It's a copyright notice with a couple
> of jokes attached. It contains no statement granting anyone anything
> with regard to the copyright of the materials it is attached to. Ask
> your lawyer.

Is it even a copyright notice? It doesn't contain the word

> 2) Ulrich didn't mention a category/package or that said package is
> in the tree already, so there probably isn't anything to "dump" at
> this stage.

It is in the tree since 2002.

> 3) Why go overboard and be all negative like that (as to suggest
> dumping the package)? Asking the copyright owner of the package
> is probably the best thing to do even if you do not intend to
> distribute the copyrighted materials and just want to know where you
> legally stand, *regardless* of whether the package is in the tree or
> not.

Meanwhile, I've discovered the following notice on upstream's WWW page

   Unless indicated otherwise (and I don't think there are actually any
   exceptions), everything here is either public domain or distributed
   under the terms of the GNU General Public License.

So since it isn't GPL, one could conclude that it is in the public
domain. However, I have send an e-mail asking for clarification.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Reply via email to