From the "BOLA license": >> To all effects and purposes, this work is to be considered Public Domain. Justin Pryzby wrote: >Some would complain that this doesn't give "explicit permission to >modify and/or distribute", and the typical suggestion is to use either >the MIT license (liberal) or GPLv2 (copyleft) as per preference.
I think the only plausible interpretation of this sentence -- at least, the only interpretation I can come up with -- is that the author gives you the right to do anything with the work that you could do with a public domain work. That includes permission to modify and/or distribute. That's a free license. Sorry again about the thread-break.
