I'm glad that you found my comment useful.
>It does seem that it would be proprietary software, but I want to put this
in context for a second.
If it actually lacks a license (instead of that it has a license but I didn't
find it), then it is proprietary software. Maybe the author wouldn't sue
anybody for using it, but because of the Berne convention, the work is
automatically under the most restrictive Copyright, and since no permissions
have been given to use the work, using the script as if it was free software
is against Copyright law (See the link to the GNU licenses list). You have
the technical ability to use the work while breaking the law, in the hope
that the Copyright holder won't bring legal action, that's not free software.
It is worrying that a contributor to high-profile projects has been so
irresponsible as to publish this software without taking the necessary
measures to make it fully free and removing the proprietary software
installation. It doesn't matters if he didn't intend to distribute the work
originally, he distributed it anyway, so he should have taken the associated
measures, and if he has contributed to high-profile projects, he knows what
those measures are, so there is no excuse.
I don't like Copyright law, but the best we can do, is to use it as a tool
for our purposes, as in Copyleft. Some people have an attitude by which they
behave as if ignoring Copyright law would make it go away or not to apply to
the work they make. That's a mistake, a waste of a valuable tool, and creates
the licensing problems that plague some free software projects.
I am not a lawyer and this is not formal legal advice.
