Re: [ANN] high-precision mathematical library

[David Kastrup <dak@...>]

Martin Schröder <martin@oneiros.de> writes:

> 2009/4/14, KHMan <keinhong@gmail.com>:
>
>>  It is in context of how the "commercialization intent" is
>> handled. Let us disregard for a moment that I agree open licenses is
>> the most beneficial to all in the case of such libraries.
>
> This is not what the tarball says. The distribution is the tarball - I
> think we can (legally) disregard any statemnts elsewhere.

If the tarball can reasonably accessed only by getting to know some
license intent, I would not say so.  A license is what governs the
agreement between the parties when a copy is received.  It need not be
in writing.  The presence of files in the tarball means little enough.

It may be a defense when a court tries determining intent, damages and
consequences.  Obviously, if a copyright holder wants to sue, he better
not give the plaintiffs a reasonable excuse why they could have assumed
a certain license.

But that does not mean that a court will in effect rule that copyright
must not be asserted when a certain file was kept accidentally in some
distribution.  Even if the court does not award damages, redistribution
would likely have to stop.

> The tarball has a COPYING (BSD), but the source files have no license
> statement, just a (c). This is broken: AFAIK all files should state
> the license.

That's more informative, certainly.

-- 
David Kastrup