Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file
Joachim Wiedorn <ad_debian@joonet.de> writes:
> The old developer = author have deleted the hole package website and
> nobody have heard of him for a long time (> 4 years I mean).
That does make it rather more difficult; the copyright regime we live
under means that, regardless of the fact no-one has been able to contact
this party, copyright control still rests with them.
> But now I have seen, that this package is not fully licensed under the
> Artistic license 1.0 (as everybody would thought), but each source
> file have the following header:
>
> /* WebDownloader for X-Window
> *
> * Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Koshelev Maxim
> * This Program is free but not GPL!!! You can't modify it
> * without agreement with author. You can't distribute modified
> * program but you can distribute unmodified program.
Trivially non-free.
> Now I ask me if this package agree with the DFSG ?
No, it violates DFSG §3.
> Today I have tried to contact the old developer = author with his old
> email adress, but I think I get no answer.
Thank you for this effort, it is necessary to try.
> What can I do, if the author doesn't answer? Is there a way?
The work as a whole remains non-free so long as it is derived from a
work with the above terms.
Can you remove that part of the work, either replacing it with an
equivalent work under a compatible free license, or modifying the
function of the program to work without it?
--
\ “Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a |
`\ finite world is either a madman or an economist.” —Kenneth |
_o__) Boulding |
Ben Finney
Reply to: