Re: cc65 licensing
Ullrich von Bassewitz writes:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 05:16:27AM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
>> | What exactly is unclear about this information?
>>
>> That it's not in the source files themselves.
>
> I've stated that twice: No conclusion at all can be drawn from the fact that a
> source file doesn't contain or reference a license. Any source is copyrighted,
> regardless if it contains a license or not. So I would say it's more a problem
> with your expectations than with the source:-)
That isn't meaningful: No one argues whether the source is
copyrighted. The question is what license applies.
> No piece of source code is required to contain a license or a reference to a
> license to be copyrighed. It is even doubtful, that a piece of source code
> that contains a license may be copied without problems, if it is not sure that
> the license was added by the person owning the rights to the code. So looking
> for licenses in source code as you do it is not a very good idea at all.
The usual presumption is that someone who distributes the code does so
(a) as the original author, (b) in accordance with some license, or
(c) because the code is in the public domain. If you distribute code,
it is your responsibility that licenses on it are clear. When you mix
code under two licenses, *you* -- and not re-distributors -- are
responsible for identifying which code falls under which license.
It is clear that Debian cannot safely distribute cc65 at all because
the license notices have been intentionally muddled.
Michael
Reply to: