Re: Custom license conditions and grant for Wordplay package
On 5/2/19 7:51 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Moshe Piekarski writes ("Re: Custom license conditions and grant for Wordplay
> package"):
>> The copyright holder made a statement on Facebook chat that he considers
>> the code to be in the public domain. Is that enough for me to consider
>> it such?
> While legally in some jurisdictions there is no such thing as public
> domain, I think the intent of the copyright holder - to grant very
> broad permissions, certainly broad enough for Debian - is clear.
>
> There is a difficulty with how we would provide evidence of this
> statement if it came to that. Can you put a transcript and/or
> (hopefully fairly small) screenshot into the source package ?
My intent was to create a gpl-3 fork of the code
>
> I don't use Facebook, so I will ask: How do you know that the Facebook
> user in question is the same person as the copyright holder ?
I'm not a facebook user either, I went by the name, the fact that
the pictures posted appeared to be of the same person as on his
site and the fact that he appeared to know what I was talking about.
> Ian.
>
Sincerely,
Moshe Piekarski
--
There's no such thing as a stupid question,
But there are plenty of inquisitive idiots.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Custom license conditions and grant for Wordplay package
The copyright holder made a statement on Facebook chat that he considers the code to be in the public domain. Is that enough for me to consider it such? Sincerely, Moshe Piekarski -- There's no such thing as a stupid question, But there are plenty of inquisitive idiots. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Custom license conditions and grant for Wordplay package
On 4/10/19 9:39 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > Before that, it would be better to start a discussion with the copyright > holder(s) to get a more robust grant under free software conditions. Unfortunately the copyright holder hasn't answered any of my emails to the provided address, and I haven't been able to find another means of communication. Sincerely, Moshe Piekarski -- There's no such thing as a stupid question, But there are plenty of inquisitive idiots. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Custom license conditions and grant for Wordplay package
On 4/10/19 7:50 PM, Ben Finney wrote: > * If the formulation “please do foo” is an enforcible *condition* on the > grant, then there are several such enforcible conditions that make > this work non-free: Given that the wordplay package may not meet the DFSG, do I have to remove it? Sincerely, Moshe Piekarski -- There's no such thing as a stupid question, But there are plenty of inquisitive idiots. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
license compatibility
> This program was written for fun and is free. Distribute it as you please, >but please distribute the entire package, with the original words721.txt and > the readme file. If you modify the code, please mention my name in it as > the original author. Please send me a copy of improvements you make, because >I may include them in a future version. Can I re-release code written under this license as gpl-2? Sincerely, Moshe Piekarski -- There's no such thing as a stupid question, But there are plenty of inquisitive idiots. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
