Re: Non-free postscript code in EPS image

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Bart Martens <bartm@debian.org> writes:

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

I agree with the distinction Bart is drawing here.

When someone asserts a license on *their own* work – once we grant that
they do hold copyright in the work they're describing – the assumption
that they know what they're talking about is sensible, because we have
direct evidence from the party we have accepted as the copyright holder.

When someone asserts a license on *someone else's* work, the assumption
(in the absence of further evidence from the copyright holder) that they
know what they're talking about is not sensible.

There is demonstrable widespread confusion – in the programming
community, and in the general public – about how to determine what
license one has in a work received. So it's sensible to assume, in the
absence of further evidence from the copyright holder, that there is
*no* license on the work received that can be passed along to Debian
users.

This allows us to take a copyright holder's word for it that they know
the license *they* are granting, but means that for a work under the
copyright of some third party, we need more than a mere assertion of
license from the recipient.

-- 
 \                “Please to bathe inside the tub.” —hotel room, Japan |
  `\                                                                   |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney