On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 11:24:26PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 23:12 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 07:02:33PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 16:48 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > > > > 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? > > > > Not in the sense that there's been, say, US case law on that specific > > fact pattern. However, the doctrine of implied license is well > > established in US copyright law. > > But that's the *concept* of an implied license, right? Not its > applicability (ew) to any particular set of circumstances that commonly > occurs in the F/OSS world? I suppose, but there's no reason why it wouldn't apply to FOSS. - RF _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
