Re: [gentoo-dev] package with funny licence

[Ulrich Mueller]

> 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
:

   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

[Jeroen Roovers]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] package with funny licence

[Paul de Vrieze]

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.  AT&T 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

[Jeroen Roovers]

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.  AT&T 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

[gentoo-dev] package with funny licence

[Ulrich Mueller]

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.  AT&T 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] 
[2] Yes, this is a serious question.
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list