In that specific instance yes, but triwhan's first statement was made before that had been established by stvn.
tirwhan can claim that he knew that when he made the statement about that specific piece of code, and everything else he has said in this subthread is aimed only at modules in a similar state of "no licence attached", and I would not be able to dispute it, but that is certainly not the impression I get from reading those posts. Nor does it fit with the tone and phrasing of his subsequent posts.
Even ignoring the assumptions he made when asking the question, the general feel is that "You cannot use free software without the copyright owners permission--even if thay haven't added an explicit copyright notice". And that absolutely flys in the face of every interpretation I have seen, heard or read of the FSF position.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
the general feel is that "You cannot use free software without the copyright owners permission--even if they haven't added an explicit copyright notice".
Er, that's kind of a confusing compound sentence. I'll make two better statements.
- You can (and are encouraged to) use Free Software (FSF's definition) without the owners permission. You can also distribute modified and unmodified versions of the software with out the owner's permission, provided you make the source code available to people you distribute to.
- Anything that lacks an explicit copyright notice and doesn't include a Free Software license is *not* Free Software and can't be used as such.
| [reply] |
I was quoting (in summary) the statement from tirwhan's post, and I agree it is muddled--and wrong.
There is, as you summarise, no such restriction imposed by the FSF definition. Indeed, the next two lines make that (in my interpretation) abundantly clear:
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity.
And any suggestion that there is any legal or moral obligation to contact the original author to obtain permission to use his code (published under an FSF compatible license), in whole or in part, is not only incorrect; but it is damaging to the very concept of those licenses.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
I did indeed know about the fact that Devel::Trace does not contain a license when I posted my response to Moron (see my reply two posts up err, one post lower)
everything else he has said in this subthread is aimed only at modules in a similar state of "no licence attached"
No, almost everything else is aimed at modules licensed under a FLOSS license. But I never mention that one needs to contact the author again (indeed I specifically denied that this needs to happen).
the general feel is that "You cannot use free software without the copyright owners permission--even if thay haven't added an explicit copyright notice"
No, correct would be "You cannot use a piece of software (writing, music, etc.) without the author's permission if they have not added an explicit license." If a piece of software is licensed under a FLOSS license, the author has already given you the permission to use it, it's in the license.
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian W. Kernighan
| [reply] |