Chris Andrew <cjhandrew@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Apologies for top-posting. (It truly helps longer discussions if people avoid top- posting and instead reply inline, with proper quoting, removing paragraphs that are not essential to the continued discussion.) > ATM, I'm neither a user nor helper, but am willing to be both. As > stated earlier (I think), sometimes the licence information is > missing > ('Public domain'), Some people actually publish their own work explicitly as "public domain", without much regard for how it would hold up in court. I've done so for some of my works. Classifying this as missing a license (or license unknown) would be incorrect, IMO. It's not the license which is unknown but the legal status of the license (in a set of jurisdictions). > this needs to be cleared-up and it could so easily > become FSF compliant at the 'stroke of a pen'. If software freedom > is > not of interest, then I'm sure M$ will be offering money soon to make > sure the Haiku project don't create any competition ;-). The FSF's view of software freedoms (e.g. copyleft) isn't necessarily shared by all Haiku parties. Being FSF compliant has never been a stated goal for Haiku. But that hardly aligns us with Microsoft. (A few more shades of gray please.) Personally I wish there was a working public domain so that we didn't have to resort to these cumbersome licenses and endure the ever-growing push for larger copyright life- spans. /Jonas.