Re: BOLA licence (darcsweb): free or not?
From the "BOLA license":
>> To all effects and purposes, this work is to be considered Public Domain.
Justin Pryzby wrote:
>Some would complain that this doesn't give "explicit permission to
>modify and/or distribute", and the typical suggestion is to use either
>the MIT license (liberal) or GPLv2 (copyleft) as per preference.
I think the only plausible interpretation of this sentence -- at least, the
only interpretation I can come up with -- is that the author gives you the
right to do anything with the work that you could do with a public domain
work. That includes permission to modify and/or distribute.
That's a free license.
Sorry again about the thread-break.
Reply to: