Question regarding GPL

Wim De Smet fragmeat at
Sat Feb 28 17:17:59 UTC 2004

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:26:30 +0100 (MET)
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams at> wrote:
>    > 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.


You are mistaking, I'm not saying what he meant. I'm just saying it's
unfair to just go and assume that he means there is simply no copyright
header. If you don't find this to be an over-assumption, then okay, but _I_
didn't assume that that was or was not the reason. And although I
replied to your message in particular, I am referring to the entire
thread being pretty pointless since nobody bothered to ask how exactly
he knew it was without copyright.

BTW, your reply is in direct contradiction with your original message.


More information about the Discussion mailing list