At 06:59 PM 4/11/01 +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 12:43:45PM -0400, dnserror@skinnykid.net wrote: > Where would a package with no license at all fit in in the distro?> it is given with source, but no copyrights, or license, when I asked the author if it was licensed he said this:> > "There's indeed no copyright or license on it, so you are free to use it." If it has no copyright then the author has to state this explicitly (i.e. say it is in the public domain). If the author doesn't say anything, then the default is that it's copyrighted with all rights reserved. You might be able to use the email you got from the author as this statement, but it's pretty thin evidence. A public statement would be much better. Richard Braakman
I just used precisely this scenario as a hypothetical in a law school copyright class. Richard is right -- if something is distributed without anything -- no copyright notice, no license, no nothing -- it is *presumed* to have an enforceable copyright attached to it; that may not be a great rule (I think its not), but its the rule we have. Only if the author clearly 'abandons' the copyright -- a public statement to that effect suffices -- is it entirely free for the taking.
David Post ************************************David G. Post Temple University Law School and The Tech Center, George Mason Univ. Law School
Postd@erols.com 215-204-4539 or 202-364-5010 http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost.html http://www.icannwatch.org *********************************************************************