Re: Opinion needed - included component w/o licensing doc
> This is a followup to a previous message I
> sent to this list.
> I sent a request to the 10-year-old address
> of the person who uploaded the program,
> "ccount", to USENet and received the response
> Is this sufficient to include "ccount" in the
> "metrics" package? If not, what would
> be? If it is sufficient, should this letter
> be included in the COPYRIGHT file?
> Thanks again,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shane Hartman" <email@example.com>
> To: "'Greg Wiley'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 11:44 PM
> Subject: RE: looking for author of ccount
> > If memory serves me correctly, I obtained fragments of a non-working
> > which I substantially rewrote into a working program. If that makes me
> > author, then you have my permission to do as you wish with the program. I
> > am amazed it is still in use.
> > Shane Hartman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Unfortunately, it sounds like Shane Hartman might not be the only
copyright holder here. It depends on what "substantially rewrote"
means. If he used the original code as a guide and reimplemented
everything, then we can probably include the code. If there is still
large fragments of original code (I believe the FSF uses 10 lines as a
general rule) then we have to get permission from the author of that
So I think you have to ask him what "substantially rewrote" means.