Hi Ben >So it's essential to know what is the specific *grant of license* from >the copyright holder to recipients of the work.
I posted you the specific grant in my previous eMail, did you not see it? >>>Where is the text granting specific license in that work? >> >><!-- >> […] >> Copyright © 2004-2017 the Contributors to the MusicXML >> Specification, published by the W3C Music Notation Community >> Group under the W3C Community Final Specification Agreement >> (FSA): >> >> https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/final/ >> >> A human-readable summary is available: >> >> https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/fsa-deed/ >>--> >> >>So, as I said, pretty much irrelevant here. In general, grants say “this is licenced under X”, unless specified otherwise, and a generic review for this is to be possible. (In this case, this is also the actual specific grant.) The wording is only really relevant if either the licence is embedded in the grant, as in the BSD camp, or in the specific case of things like GPL versions. This affects actually a minority of licences. bye, //mirabilos -- 22:20⎜<asarch> The crazy that persists in his craziness becomes a master 22:21⎜<asarch> And the distance between the craziness and geniality is only measured by the success 18:35⎜<asarch> "Psychotics are consistently inconsistent. The essence of sanity is to be inconsistently inconsistent
