On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 08:58:04AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> That isn't meaningful: No one argues whether the source is
> copyrighted. The question is what license applies.
But it's not me asking this question, it's you. I have always stated that the
old license is still in effect for parts of the old code. This information is
in the docs and on the web page, and I have told everyone about it who asked
me. It were supporters of the Debian project who claimed that the original
license is no longer valid because of dubious assumptions. It is ridiculous
that you're trying to make me responsible for these assumptions.
> 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.
That is definitely wrong. There is no difference between "distributing" and
"re-distributing". Everyone distributing code needs to check and comply with
the license that covers that code. Just because I'm distributing code does not
make it safe for you to do that, too. You cannot just take code from
somewhere, distribute it violating a license, and then come up with the excuse
"I'm just re-distributing it".
> It is clear that Debian cannot safely distribute cc65 at all because
> the license notices have been intentionally muddled.
The former is what I'm saying for a long time, the latter is obviously wrong.
I'm pretty sure that you didn't really bother to look at the stuff you're
talking about. The license notices for code not written by me is exactly in
the same state as it was in the original. So there was no "intentional
muddling".
Regards
Uz
--
Ullrich von Bassewitz uz@musoftware.de
Attachment:
pgpoDE0rff0aZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature