ZLIB:
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute
it
freely, subject to the following restrictions:
Seb did alter it, he is allowed to do so. William gave consent for
"anyone to use this software for any purpose, and to redistribute". It
is too late to take that back.
1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must
not
claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this
software
in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation
would be
appreciated but is not required.
Seb never calmed that he wrote the software.
2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must
not be
misrepresented as being the original software.
It is clearly marked in "Adapted-by"
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source
distribution.
Seb did not remove the "ZLIB" notice or Williams name.
What part of the license did Seb infringe on?
Matt.
On May 7, 12:00 am, Jaluino <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sebastien Lelong wrote:
> > So far you've been the first to react like this, so we don't have much
> > background about this. Originally, Author field was here to give credits,
> > grants, and eternal fame. You'd like to add the possibility to give "veto"
> > changes, potentially freezing your contribution even in defavor of others.
>
> It seems to me as a largely disinterested observer (albeit with a legal
> background) that William's point is about copyright and therefore the
> licence.
>
> Copyright grants an author certain rights. The licence allows an author
> to grant some or all of these rights to non-authors, as is obvious in
> the zlib licence.
>
> It is certainly not legal to attribute authorship to someone who is not
> the author without assigning the copyright and the assignee accepting
> the assignment. In this context, if person X creates a file, then person
> X is the author of that file, not person Y unless you assign copyright
> to person Y and person Y accepts that assignment.
>
> Additionally, you cannot ignore the licence and what it actually grants
> you. In the case of the zlib licence, any changes to the source which
> are not accepted by the author are really derivative works and must not
> be represented as being the original software or authored by the
> original author.
>
> The confusion seems to have arisen by wanting "to do the right thing" -
> that is, acknowledging the original author's work without which the
> derivative work would not have come into being. The only problem is that
> has not been done in accordance with the licence or in consultation with
> the author.
>
> Have I clarified the issue? I hope so. There really is no argument, just
> a simple misunderstanding.
>
> Cheers,
> TREV.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jallib" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
