John Summerfield wrote:
inode0 wrote:
On 3/12/07, John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I understand it, if FSF asserts a copyright, I cannot distribute it
under any terms, unless there is a further permission to do so. I don't
think "public domain" is that further permission.
Doesn't the statement that the subpackage in which it is contained is
covered by the GPL mean anything? What is the purpose of the COPYING
Not when there's a part of the package with a different statement, as in
this case. It's fairly common, even with commercial and proprietary
software, for some components to be redistributable. That's the case
with the Sun and IBM java packages, it was the case (with restrictions)
with IBM's Visual Age for C for OS/2.
file in the subpackage if it is not the granting of rights by the
copyright holder you are looking for?
Clearly this is fouled up as we have agreed. The FSF should fix it and
I'm sure they will. I'll bring it to their attention just to end this
thread. :)
The distros also need to update, so it can be seen to be right.
Don Armstrong at Debian agrees with me, and has taken it up with the
FSF. He also adds
"It is possible for a file to have components which are both in the
public domain, and those which are copyrighted. Moreover, since some
jurisdictions do not have a concept of public domain, in them a
copyright may still exist. [Course, in many of the files in question,
it's not clear that there is enough expressive content to actually be
copyrightable...]"
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please do not reply off-list
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-beta-list mailing list
rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
