I'm not sure how to correctly handle bug #87542.
It is about a dev-tex package that doesn't have a license (ctan doesn't
state one, and no license can be found anywhere else).
By definition I have to assume that it is proprietary.
But an eager bug reporter has gotten a statement from the two authors,
that the package is meant to be public-domain.
Should I require a public statement from the authors, like an update
version on ctan that states the license, or is it enough to refer to the
bug report? (ie., is it enough that the reporter says that the author
said the package is public-domain?)
--
Martin Ehmsen
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
It is about a dev-tex package that doesn't have a license (ctan doesn't
state one, and no license can be found anywhere else).
By definition I have to assume that it is proprietary.
But an eager bug reporter has gotten a statement from the two authors,
that the package is meant to be public-domain.
Should I require a public statement from the authors, like an update
version on ctan that states the license, or is it enough to refer to the
bug report? (ie., is it enough that the reporter says that the author
said the package is public-domain?)
--
Martin Ehmsen
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list