[MPlayer-dev-eng] Re: MplayerXP vs Mplayer. Hall of truth.

[D Richard Felker III]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 07:33:52PM +0100, Tobias Diedrich wrote:
> Nick Kurshev wrote:
> > mplayer's package contains dominated number of sources which have no licence at all
> > (include core of player and its integral parts).
> 
> IANAL, but IMHO:
> 
> Just because the license is not stated in the source files does not mean
> "it has no license at all so I can do whatever I want".
> I'd rather take this to mean you have to negotiate with the writer of
> the code the terms on which it may be licensed. After all the writer
> still has the copyright unless he explicitly chooses to make it public
> domain.

So true. Idiotic proprietary software companies have people thinking
backwards to the point that they can't even comprehend simple terms. A
license, in legalese, is a document granting one permission to do
something that would otherwise be prohibited -- NOT an agreement or
contract, and certainly not a document that magically takes away your
rights.

In summary, no license = you can't make copies or derivative works at
all beyond the limits of fair use. No license is the opposite of
public domain, not the same. However, IANAL, but in any sane
interpretation of the law and fair use, a license is not required to
make the temporary copies in memory necessary to run a program, or to
make modification to a program for one's own personal use to adapt it
to one's own needs.

</copyright rant>

Rich