In THIS case Jed creates NO real license on usage at all. Rather a redundant license of negation.
Unlike you I think this IS a Copyright issue, because he DECLARES it is not copyrighted, but under a specific fruitless license :-). Its that declaration that has entailments for users having to replicate a license that his work is not copyrighted. Josiah On Monday, 19 June 2017 14:27:15 UTC+2, PMario wrote: > > On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 2:10:13 PM UTC+2, @TiddlyTweeter wrote: >> >> You are also missing one point that by declaring a copyright that gives >> ALL rights you are also declaring a copyright that has to be replicated, >> even if ALL rights are given. If that is what you want then "This is NOT >> copyright" is the way to go :-) >> > > As I wrote. It not a copyright issue. It's all about licensing. Throw the > copyright term away!!!! > > >> >> "The person who associated a work with this deed has *dedicated* the >> work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work >> worldwide under copyright law" >> > > That's a problem. There are some countries, where this type of license is > not possible. > -m > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/b0c4a445-8d44-4f49-aabd-7606ebadeabb%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
