Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724
--- Comment #18 from Mark Johnson <johnsonm(a)gmail.com> 2009-03-05 16:34:17 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #17)
The original public domain work is Public Domain. A modified, or
derived work,
can be under any license that the new author of the work wants. Since Public
Domain is not a license, but the absence of a license (or if it helps you wrap
your brain around it, the granting of all possible rights), it doesn't matter.
Say there exists a source code file within pjp's djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz that is
identical to version in DJB's djbdns-1.05.tar.gz available at
http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz. Are you saying that if that file is
obtained from pjp's djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz, the terms of the GPL apply if that
file, and only that file, are incorporated in a further derived work?
As to removing DJB's copyright notice, DJB did that. It would be
nice to
reference his message in which he took that action.
DJB did not make this tarball available:
http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz
which is a modified version his original djbdns-1.05 with a new README file
that does not have his original copyright statement (But does have a copy of
the GPL v3 in COPYING). Since pjp did, I think it would be prudent to also
reference this URL and / or the statement found there relevant to djbdns in
future releases:
http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
Otherwise, I think somebody could get the idea that DJB released djbdns under
the GPL, which is not the case. Also, if the License is intended to be GPLv2+,
should COPYING really include v3?
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.