Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 01:00:44 -0400 From: Stephen Cook <sclists@gmail.com> To: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> Cc: Dirk Engling <erdgeist@erdgeist.org>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: qjail fork attribution was Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique (fwd) Message-ID: <515A65FC.5090706@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130401200221.T56386@sola.nimnet.asn.au> References: <20130401200221.T56386@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/1/2013 5:23 AM, Ian Smith wrote: > One does not have to be a lawyer to know the lack of any license verbiage > embedded in computer programs released to the public becomes property of public > domain forever. Putting license verbiage on your next port version is > unenforceable because it's already property of public domain. I don't know enough about the original disagreement to comment on it, but this part is completely untrue. IANAL but I can use Google and common sense. Under the Berne Convention, if there is no notice included with a copyrightable work, it defaults to "all rights reserved". Until you receive explicit permission, or a permissive license is included, it is assumed that you *cannot* legally copy or derive from that work. So, if there is no license at all attached to ezjail, as you say, you are infringing copyright. Luckily for you, the ezjail web page declares it to be licensed as Beer Ware after all. Nothing personal, I just tend to correct people when they make up laws, especially after a long enough period where I didn't get to criticize anyone's grammar. :-) -- Stephen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?515A65FC.5090706>