Re: graywolf (TimberWolf) and licensing

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Ben Finney writes ("Re: graywolf (TimberWolf) and licensing"):
> The problem you point out, though, still remains: None of the above
> seems to constitute a *grant* of license, IMO. That would take the form
> of the copyright holder explicitly stating “<recipient foo> may <do
> specific action bar> under the terms of <specific license terms baz>”.

Yes.  But I think the correspondent at Yale is trying to do the right
thing.  I suggest that the best plan is to simply write back, without
too much legalese, asking a simple question to which we hope for a
"yes" answer.

For example:

   > Your inquiry below was forwarded to me. Yale would appreciate it if
   > you would simply state that the software was developed at Yale. That
   > said, we don't have any specific text that you should cite specifying
   > copyright ownership, etc.

   Thanks for your message.  Just to be clear, then: can you confirm
   that Yale is happy for us to distribute graywolf under the GNU
   GPLv2+ ?  We will of course give credit to Yale.

Ian.