Ben Finney writes ("Re: graywolf (TimberWolf) and licensing"):
> The problem you point out, though, still remains: None of the above
> seems to constitute a *grant* of license, IMO. That would take the form
> of the copyright holder explicitly stating “<recipient foo> may <do
> specific action bar> under the terms of <specific license terms baz>”.Yes. But I think the correspondent at Yale is trying to do the right thing. I suggest that the best plan is to simply write back, without too much legalese, asking a simple question to which we hope for a "yes" answer. For example: > Your inquiry below was forwarded to me. Yale would appreciate it if > you would simply state that the software was developed at Yale. That > said, we don't have any specific text that you should cite specifying > copyright ownership, etc. Thanks for your message. Just to be clear, then: can you confirm that Yale is happy for us to distribute graywolf under the GNU GPLv2+ ? We will of course give credit to Yale. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21584.61975.127453.864...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
