Re: license change?

On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 10:20 +0200, Bryan Stansell via users wrote:

> Well, surprisingly, this did come up before, and the INSTALL file has
> my notes from back in 2003, apparently:

Ah, I only looked at the LICENSE(S) files, woops.

> So, it’s more the lack of explicitly stating the code can be
> modified.  And, as it says, I had (probably still have, somewhere) an
> email from the author clarifying, but I’m not sure how we’d be able
> to get the license officially updated.  Many chunks of the original
> code are still there, so I don’t believe it can be ignored.  I really
> think the phrasing was just an oversight (and decades of modified
> code being out there says something, though I doubt it means anything
> legally).

Debian generally accepts email clarifications, so just publishing that
and adding a note to the LICENSES file should be enough for Debian.

Of course getting a more explicit re-licensing would be better.

> Anyone even know who’d be responsible for this type of thing there?

I couldn't find any evidence of an Open Source Lab there and after a
bit of searching, the Technology Commercialization Office seems like
the closest thing to a copyright holder contact for the conserver code.

innovation@osu.edu
https://tco.osu.edu/

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part