A PR (https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=279111) has been opened with the intent to supply a suitable LICENSE for the x11-wm/piewm port.
I am the maintainer of the port (out of self-defense, more than anything else); I am unable to determine what would make sense in this case: * The most recent "copyright" notice I find is from 1991 (U. of Maryland). * There also exist "copyright" notices from: * Don Hopkins (1989) * MIT (1989) * Solbourne Computer, Inc (1990) * Evans & Sutherland (1988) * HP & MIT (1989) * As best I can determine, there are no explicit "license" statements in the distribution. The creator of the PR suggested "MIT" for the license. While I can't claim that's wrong, I also can't claim it's right -- and my current impression is that claiming something that is, in fact, not correct in such a case is probably rather worse than making no claim at all. I am no expert in law (in general) or Intellectual Property law (in particular). I would like to do "what's right." Suggestions or advice? Thanks. Peace, david. I would like to do "what's right." Suggestions or advice? Thanks. Peace, david -- David H. Wolfskill da...@catwhisker.org I will not be voting for a "unified reich" in the US. See https://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for my public key.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
