Re: [gentoo-dev] package with funny licence
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 copyright. 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 http://www.splode.com/~friedman/software/: 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. Ulrich -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] package with funny licence
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 03:01:52 Jeroen Roovers wrote: On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 12:21:12 +0200 Ulrich Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today I stumbled over a package that has the following funny licence in its file headers: ;; Bozoup(P) 1995 The Bozo(tic) Softwar(e) Founda(t)ion, Inc. ;; See the BOZO Antipasto for further information. ;; If this is useful to you, may you forever be blessed by the Holy Lord ;; Patty. ATT you will. That's not a license, it's a copyright notice with added fluff. The package was marked as GPL-2 but I think this does not really hit the spot. ;-) If I were you, I would ask the author and not simply label it as-is. GPL-2 it definitely isn't. The whole license is especially completely unintelligeable. Is one actually allowed to distribute/modify/use the software at all? It is probably best to dump the package. Paul -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] package with funny licence
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 22:02:31 +1000 Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The whole license is especially completely unintelligeable. Is one actually allowed to distribute/modify/use the software at all? It is probably best to dump the package. 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. 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. 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. Kind regards, JeR -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-dev] package with funny licence
Today I stumbled over a package that has the following funny licence in its file headers: ;; Bozoup(P) 1995 The Bozo(tic) Softwar(e) Founda(t)ion, Inc. ;; See the BOZO Antipasto for further information. ;; If this is useful to you, may you forever be blessed by the Holy Lord ;; Patty. ATT you will. The package was marked as GPL-2 but I think this does not really hit the spot. ;-) Should I add the BOZO Antipasto [1] as a new licence, or is LICENSE=as-is sufficient here? [2] Ulrich [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/BOZO [2] Yes, this is a serious question. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] package with funny licence
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 12:21:12 +0200 Ulrich Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today I stumbled over a package that has the following funny licence in its file headers: ;; Bozoup(P) 1995 The Bozo(tic) Softwar(e) Founda(t)ion, Inc. ;; See the BOZO Antipasto for further information. ;; If this is useful to you, may you forever be blessed by the Holy Lord ;; Patty. ATT you will. That's not a license, it's a copyright notice with added fluff. The package was marked as GPL-2 but I think this does not really hit the spot. ;-) If I were you, I would ask the author and not simply label it as-is. GPL-2 it definitely isn't. Kind regards, JeR -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
