Re: Non-free postscript code in EPS image

[Bart Martens <bartm@debian.org>]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 01:29:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.

The presence of copyright notices from Adobe and the absence of a license from
Adobe seem relevant to me.

> No one here has provided any evidence one way or
> the other about whether Adobe has given a license.

The absence of a license from Adobe is evidence to me that Adobe has not 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

Yes, "on their work".

> even
> when portions are copyright other people/entities.

No, this is not a sensible default assumption.

> 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.

The sensible default here is that Adobe has not given a license for the parts
copyrighted by Adobe.

Regards,

Bart Martens