On September 15, 2005 3:12:42 PM -0400 Alan DeKok <aland@ox.org> wrote:
Frank Cusack <fcusack@fcusack.com> wrote:
You can't know for sure how Globe.Net intended to license the software, especially given their demonstrated na??vete made clear by their failure to specify license terms in their source.
They requested that the code be submitted to a project that they knew was licensed under the GPL.
Legally knew?
If they decide they didn't know inclusion meant GPL (or change their mind down the road and claim ignorance), you can be sure the legal battle will be hell.
I don't think so. But that's my $0.02.
Well, not if you simply remove the code.
You really must have explicit license terms in order to include sql_ippool (or any contrib software).
For one-line patches?
No, but I thought the entirety of the module was theirs. If it was just a one liner, it's obviously ok. cvs log seems to indicate it's the entire module.
If that was a serious worry, then nearly every GPL'd project would be vulnerable to the same issues.
Well, even though a one-liner may seem to be obviously ok, GPL has not been tested in court and until such time, every GPL'd project *is* vulnerable. I fail to see why it's difficult to add an explicit GPL header. -frank