Re: [gNewSense-users] Copyright, but no license: Free or not?

[Tor at Shared Genius]

Is it possible that what is really going on is that the copyright notice 
is simply a note of /who/ to go to for a particular violation, with the 
split copyrights, and the GPL applies to all files /unless otherwise 
noted/, so perhaps what is needed for future versions is something of 
this sort in the main headers:

"All files licensed under GPL[vX] unless specifically noted in the 
copyright notice for the file"

Even without this, is it possible to make the case that these files were 
contributed specifically for use in a situation where a license other 
than GPL would obviously violate the linking requirements, thus, 
upstream neglected to consider this case, as the licensing was 
contextually obvious?

Tor

Tor Chantara
Shared Genius Computer Services
FSF Member #6865


Deborah Nicholson wrote:
> > > Unless there is some clear basis to argue that a free license applies
> > > to these files, they are non-free.
> > >
> > > I would expect that the lack of a license notice is unintentional and
> > > that the developers of these files will add a license notice when they
> > > see a bug report about this.
> > >       
>
> Did you ask RMS about programs with no license headers or programs that
> happen to not include a copy of the license? 
>
> If GPL headers are there, then the author has probably just forgotten to
> include a copy of the license and usually a note will clear that up. If
> you've got programs with no headers at all or just a smattering of BSD
> and MIT, then I don't think you can assume that those programs are
> free. 
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gNewSense-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
>
>
>