[Fink-devel] Re: License for .info and .patch files

[Robert T Wyatt]

Doesn't the .info contain the copyright statement (in at least some 
cases)? Isn't there some implication here? To my mind, when reading the 
document, the copyright applies to its bearing instrument unless 
expressly stated otherwise. Considering that the copyright (at least in 
spirit) applies to usage as well as distribution, and the .info is 
necessary to use the package, one has another argument that the .info 
file must follow the same license. The .patch, if any, is incorporated 
by reference (from the perspective of one claiming copyright).

By whom is one most worried about getting sued: the author of a 
peer-directed open-source project package? How does this compare, for 
argument's sake, with submitting an article for peer review to a 
journal? (... and is this really not all spelled out by sourceforge or 
osdn or ...?)

ianal, just wondering where the lines are drawn
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel