On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 07:51:55PM +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > > A copyright statement does not, by itself, say anything about the license of > > the work. Since Illustrator is frequently used for producing output files > > that are expected to be distributed, it would be reasonable to assume that > > the output is liberally licensed and that whatever license is listed in the > > package is in fact the correct one, with no other license attaching to this > > output. > > If you find an authoritative license statement to the contrary, *then* we > > should worry about whether this is non-redistributable. > The user of Adobe Illustrator may have had the intention to create files > that can be freely redistributed. If parts of the files are copyrighted > by Adobe (Michael wrote "contains postscript library code that is > copyrighted by Adobe") without license from Adobe, then the files cannot > be freely redistributed. Correct but irrelevant. No one here has provided any evidence one way or the other about whether Adobe has given a license. The sensible *default* assumption is that when an upstream asserts that the license on their work is $foo, they know what they're talking about even when portions are copyright other people/entities. There's no reason to deviate from this sensible default just because it's known that one of the entities listed releases other software under proprietary licenses. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature