Re: 'Re-licensing'

[Jules Bean <jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk>]

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:

> Previously Jules Bean wrote:
> > i) 'in the public domain' is a phrase normally used of information, not
> > copyrightable material.  As applied to software, a court would likely
> > interpret it as giving unrestricted permission to copy.
> 
> Copy only? ie not modify, (re)compile, etc. ?

Unrestricted permission to copy includes the permission to modify -
modifying is considered, under copyright law, as a partial or complete 
copy with additions.  The additions aren't a problem, it's the partial or
complete copy that is :)

Licenses which are intended to forbid modification must only allow
'verbatim' copies.

Jules
 
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
|  Jelibean aka  | jules@jellybean.co.uk         |  6 Evelyn Rd	       |
|  Jules aka     | jules@debian.org              |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk        |  TW9 2TF *UK*       |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
|  War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left.             |
|  When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy.          |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/