"None" license

[Joshua Root]

On 2012-1-3 14:13 , Arno Hautala wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 19:24, Joshua Root <jmr at macports.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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?

The author is incorrect in saying there is no license.

A license is a statement from the copyright holder(s) that says "You may
perform action X which you would otherwise not be permitted to perform
because of copyright." The very sentence I quoted *is* a license.

Most of the licenses in the open source world grant their permissions
only on certain conditions, and I think maybe he's trying to say that
his isn't like that. That is, he's incorrectly using the word "license"
to refer to the conditions.

- Josh