On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 09:42:20AM +0100, Alessio Treglia wrote:
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:
It might very well be true that those files have no copyright holders, but who then licensed them as GPL-2+?!?

The answer is: I don't know :)
But the COPYING file provided with the tarball and other sources say GPL-2 and then, since distributing a tarball under the terms of the GPL without a copyright notice is allowed, I thought examples were "GPL-2 without copyright holder".

That is bogus, then: Only a license issued by the owner is valid.

What do you mean with "distributing a tarball under the terms of the GPL without a copyright notice is allowed"? If you mean that apparently it is allowed since it exist, then that is a bogus assumption: We obey the DFSG while the rest of the world can choose to me more relaxed.

All of this is just my personal interpretation: Please run it by the debian-legal@ mailinglist to get a more authoritative answer.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to