Re: dhcdbd licensing
- From: Daniel Gryniewicz <dang fprintf net>
- To: Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>
- Cc: networkmanager-list gnome org, Tom Parker <palfrey gmail com>, Jonathan Blandford <jrb redhat com>, jvdias redhat com
- Subject: Re: dhcdbd licensing
- Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 12:04:14 -0400
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 10:59 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 10:16 -0400, Jason Vas Dias wrote:
> > > Best to have *some* license on it, rather than just "distributable".
> > Why ?
>
> It removes any question as to what license the code is under. Ambiguity
> is bad.
It's worse than that. If it doesn't have an explicit license of some
type, then no one has any rights to use it for anything at all, at least
here in the US. All copyrighted works (which all code is) default to no
rights for anyone but the copyright holder. Some license must be given,
and I doubt that "distributable" in the .spec file counts.
That said, it generally only matters if the copyright holder comes after
someone. But, good luck getting Novel or RedHat to ship unlicensed
code.
Daniel
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]
