Re: [gentoo-dev] package with funny licence

2007-07-06 Thread 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
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

2007-07-04 Thread 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.  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

2007-07-04 Thread 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

2007-07-03 Thread 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.  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