"None" license

[Arno Hautala]

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 19:24, Joshua Root <jmr at macports.org> wrote:
>
> The author doesn't appear to understand how copyright works and/or what
> a license is.

He also states that symlinks has been around many years before the
open source "fad", but the earliest release that I've been able to
find (1.0) is from 1994. GPLv1 has been around since 1989.

> If there is no license (and the work is not in the public
> domain), we can't distribute the software at all. His direction to "Use
> and distribute and modify as you (or anyone else) sees fit" is a (very
> permissive) license.

I'm a bit confused here. You seem to be saying that without a license
an archive can't be distributed, but also that it's a Permissive
license, which is identified as distributable. Or am I
misinterpreting?

I agree that the author isn't exactly answering the license question.
In my reading, he seems to be all but explicitly releasing it as
public domain.


-- 
arno  s  hautala    /-|   arno at alum.wpi.edu

pgp b2c9d448