Question regarding GPL

Alfred M. Szmidt ams at
Fri Feb 27 19:26:30 UTC 2004

   > He claimed that it was PD based on the lack of a copyright
   > header, Alex Hudson noted that just because it lacks a copyright
   > header doesn't mean that it is PD.

   No, he did not. He claimed that "it has no copyright". That can
   mean a number of things(including that the author renounced his
   copyright in some way) and you are over-assuming.

I didn't over-assume anything.  One can read the OP's sentence in
several ways, one way is reading the content of the parens as "since
it has no copyright header".  The OP didn't state how he knows that
the code is in PD; nor has he actually stated how he knows this.  So
_everyone_ in this thread are assuming things, including you.

More information about the Discussion mailing list