++ 08/12/13 10:21 -0700 - Chris Down: >not a mailing list thread where none of us are lawyers. Either way, I [...]
No. We are not lawyers. So, I contacted a well-known Dutch lawyer. His response was practically the same as Remco Rijnders': given the circumstances it's safe to assume GPLv2 applies to the patches of Dale (as they are derivates to an aplication that was released under GPLv2 and GPLv2 requires derivates to be released under the same license). I mentioned the theoretical possibility of Dale having received the code of mutt under a different license. The lawyer replied with the notion that this would be extremely unlikely and that, under Dutch law [1], in such cases it's safe to asume it was released under GPLv2. [1] Artikel 3:35 Burgerlijk Wetboek. -- Rejo Zenger . <[email protected]> . 0x21DBEFD4 . <https://rejo.zenger.nl> GPG encrypted e-mail preferred . +31.6.39642738 . @rejozenger
pgpQVGGesNi6i.pgp
Description: PGP signature
