Re: Source code with no (explicit) licence
begin David Starner quotation:
> There's no legal question here, no arguments; that's what the law
> says.
The question, if any, is what licence might be created implicit in the
_circumstances_ (see two paragraphs down) of Bernstein's distribution.
Although I presumed to raise the issue on debian-legal, my concern is
not whether Bernstein's whack-assed software is acceptable to The Debian
Project, but rather with whether I'm being fair in my ftp-daemons
survey, especially since I am rather infamously hostile to the man's
softwarei[1], having had the gruesome experience of administering a
large qmail site at $PRIOR_FIRM.
So: Within my ftp-daemons list, I am making every effort to state
accurately what licence applies to each entry. And, with Publicfile,
I have the difficulty of summarising what licence rights apply, by
default action of local law, absent any statement of licence.
Some of the resulting questions are unclear to me, even in USA copyright
law, let alone elsewhere: Does Bernstein's posting the file to an
unrestricted public ftp or Web site create implicit general licence to
retrieve the file? I would guess so. To compile it? I would guess so.
To modify it? I would guess not. To redistribute it with or without
modification? I would guess not.
But I know of no statutory or case law that _says so_, and I am not a
copyright attorney. My reasoning is based on a plausibility argument,
alone, and nothing more solid. Perhaps you or Joseph Carter _are_
copyright attorneys and/or know the applicable law by heart. If so, I'd
be glad to be enlightened.[2]
If not, those would seem intriguing questions and possibly worthy of
thought. Mine if not yours.
Not for DJB's sake, who can proceed immediately and directly to the
ecclesiastical place of eternal torment[3], as far as I'm concerned.
[1] I.e., I wrote http://crackmonkey.org/faq.html#ANSWER23 .
[2] Indeed, before posting, I slogged through all 24 months of list
archives. Neither of you gentlemen has previously addressed that
question, though prior discussions of "I hereby put this software in the
public domain" licencing did occur and was slightly relevant. On those
matters, I _do_ happen to know the ruling caselaw (CCNV vs. Reid), and
was surprised to not see it cited, here. See:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=490&invol=730 .
[3] And his little code, too.
--
Cheers, "Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm
Rick Moen for a day. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm
rick@linuxmafia.com for the rest of his life." -- John A. Hrastar
Reply to: