Implicit granting of rights? (was: Bug#363061: tetex-extra: palatcm.sty is non-free)
Ralf Stubner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 15:14 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> | %%% Copyright (C) 1994 Aloysius G. Helminck. All rights reserved.
>> | %%% Permission is granted to to customize the declarations in this
>> | %%% file to serve the needs of your installation. However, no permission
>> | %%% is granted to distribute a modified version of this file under
>> | %%% its original name.
That would be just on the right side of the border set by DFSG #4 (note
that it's a TeX input file, so it is both source and used form), but
>> But it doesn't even allow use - don't know whether this is implicitly
> I would vote for implicitly granted usage rights, but IANAL.
Can we in fact assume such implicit granting of rights? It seems logic
to me, because there are no "needs of your installation" if all I may do
is meditate over the contents of the file. But I'm not sure whether
what seems logic to me is logic in IP law...
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)