svn commit: r421549 - in head: . Mk
Pietro Cerutti
gahr at FreeBSD.org
Fri Sep 9 10:06:20 UTC 2016
On 2016-09-09 10:57, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> On 9/09/2016 6:35 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 06:29:33PM +1000, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
>>> On 9/09/2016 4:26 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>>> In both case that means there is NO license and then we should
>>>> not distribute them at all.
>>>
>>> There are cases where software has no license, the author says so,
>>> but they mean, and/or say 'free to do with what you please'. This
>>> is neither NONE, nor undefined (in terms of the 'terms'), nor PD,
>>> nor 'empty(LICENSE)'.
>>
>> That's why I prefer something along
>> UNCLEAR/MOOT/VAGUE/CONTROVERSIAL/etc. to cover all those "weird"
>> cases and be done with it.
>>
>> ./danfe
>>
>
> And precisely why UNDEFINED was suggested over NONE.
>
> The reason for UNDEFINED over others? Not as prescriptive or
> subjective.
> More inclusive (better coverage/utility).
Which is likely the problem here. As this thread clearly shows, the lack
of an explicit license could mean different things depending on
different factors, including i) who you're talking to, ii) the country
where the software was developed or resides, iii) others UNKNOWN to me.
Ultimately, a court could state the exact meaning of the lack of a
license, but we don't want to get there for every single piece of
abandonware that's not declaring a license. UNDEFINED is wrong. The
license could well be defined by laws even if not defined in the source
code.
The fact that we do not know what the lack of license means makes me
feel safer with UNKNOWN than with UNDEFINED.
my 0.2 CHF.
--
Pietro Cerutti
gahr at FreeBSD.org
PGP Public Key:
http://gahr.ch/pgp
More information about the svn-ports-all
mailing list