On 2013-12-07 22:50:37 +0100, Rejo Zenger wrote: > - I have made several attempts to contact Dave before (on the > availability of updated patched, not the license), but to no > avail.
Copyright doesn't even expire on death in most countries. I'd consider "uncontactable" to be less egregious than dead. > - As, I presume, he has made his patches available to the general > public with the intention to help others with a similar problem and, > I presume, he has no longer interest in maintaining the patches > himself, I assumed he would not have a problem in someone else > putting an effort in creating an updated version of his patches. Yes, > these are just pre- and assumptions. If you wanted to help others, why did you "license" it under such a restrictive license? If someone used the GPLv2 to license any of my work because I hadn't specified a license, I would be pretty annoyed, because the GPL is awful. > - For the same reason I presume he has made the earlier version of his > patches available to the general public, I wanted to make the updated > version available to the general public. I am aware of all the effort > he (and Remco) has put in it, which is why I credited them. Credit does not mitigate copyright violation. > - I know how copyright works. Of course. I am aware that there is no > room for these afformentioned pre- and assumptions in copyright. So, > I just removed the repository from github.com. That's not really what I meant. I am not against doing stuff like this "for the public good", but it is a bit ridiculous to assert that the GPLv2 is the correct license for a work with unspecified copyright, don't you think, especially since it is so objectionable?
pgpblG_tJWrJZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
