On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 03:34:11PM -0800, Bryan Irvine wrote: > On Nov 30, 2007 3:19 PM, Andrew Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Wouldn't such reasoning about a "gift" apply equally to a BSD-license on > > free-as-in-beer software? > > > > Andrew Ruscica wrote: > > ... > > > "Why the Public Domain Isn't a License" (Linux Journal) > > > http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 > > > > > > From the article: > > ... > > > > > "Unfortunately, such gifts are illusory. Under basic contract law, a gift > > > cannot be enforced. The donor can retract his gift at any time, for any > > > reason - scant security for someone intending to make long-term use of > > > a piece of software."
> No, I think you missed the point of the article. It's trying to say > that you retain copyright like a sticky booger. Merely saying 'this > stuff is in public domain now' is not enough to make it so. > > Strangely, it appears that you have no right put something in the > public domain, it just happens 70 years after you die. (Copyright > lawyers feel free to chime in here) This is not strange. "Something gets into public domain if the author died 70 years ago." Now people are saying: I want to put something in public domain. This is just nonsense. You could say: "do whatever you like with this" but you still have to die and wait for 70 years before it is in public domain. People are saying some software is in public domain but this is not the way 'public domain' is used origionally. Some people are just making another defenition of it. > -B What does this mean? I see those kind of 'options' more often. Pieter Verberne
