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 #24 from Mark Johnson <johnsonm@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-06 12:11:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) > This is generally how the GPL works. > > If you take file A, which is under Public Domain (all rights granted to > everyone) and file B, which is under some version of the GPL, and you compile > them together to generate binary C, binary C is under the terms of the GPL, > because the GPL is by far the more restrictive license, and the terms of file > A are all being met by it. I didn't ask about a hypothetical binary C. To use your terminology for this thought experiment, do the terms of the GPL apply to file A, if file A and only file A, is obtained from pjp's djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz, which includes a copy of v3 of the GPL? > No, but I'm pretty sure the latest release for all of his code drops took out > the copyright statement. He has also issued blanket To my knowledge, the last release of djbdns was 8 years ago and he did not issue a new release when he abandoned his copyright. The tarball at: http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz still contains this in the README: djbdns 1.05 20010211 Copyright 2001 D. J. Bernstein > Thus, there is no need to retain his copyright statement, as it clearly no > longer applies. To re-add it would be incorrect and misleading. I did not say his copyright statement should be retained. I'm just trying to say that when it is removed (as it already has been), his declaration at http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html should be referenced explicitly. > Given that he has abandoned copyright entirely, he no longer has any say in > what anyone does with it. No, but it's no excuse to get sloppy and give people the wrong idea, either. I've got my own public domain fork of djbdns and I would very much appreciate it if pjp was very clear that the original material he based his fork on was public domain. In any event, we're seriously cluttering this bug/ticket up. Suggest we take any further discussions elsewhere or just table them. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review