On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 16:48 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 12:49:11AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > On 07/06/2011 11:52 PM, Jon Stanley wrote: > > > *** In the US, at least, there's only minimal rights associated with > > > things that have no license, therefore, we would be on shakey legal > > > grounds if we accepted contributions without license terms > > > > Yet this routinely happens. Patches contributed via bugzilla or ones > > that contributors pick from mailing lists etc. > > I think there may be some confusion on this one particular > point. Something can be licensed even if it doesn't have an explicit > license notice on it. Implicit licensing is pervasive in free software > development. Is there some kind of solid legal basis for this opinion? It seems speculative. Has it been established definitively that, say, a patch sent to the mailing list of a well-established F/OSS project definitely has an implicit license? I think a lot of us operate under that assumption (though we probably don't think about it too much), but it strikes me as the kind of thing a court might have different thoughts about. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
