Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia
Quoting Don Armstrong (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003, Rick Moen wrote:
> > This I did not say.
> It's either meaningless or meaningfull. I can't quite reconcile the
> idea of it being both.
I didn't say that, either.
Don, if you're going to be spending the rest of the month inviting me to
justify statements I did _not_ say, it's going to be a very long month.
Moreover, I usually jettison from my life as a hopeless time-waster
anyone who attempts it about three times in any fairly short period.
Your count, in that area, now stands at two.
> If you're trying to say....
I see no need to tell you what I'm "trying to say". Having reviewed my
prior posts, the semantic payloads thereof should be amply clear.
> >> My argument, for reference, is that a work dedicated to the public
> >> domain is equivalent to a work with a license granting unlimited
> >> unrevokable rights to the public to use, modify, copy, etc.
> > That is an opinion, with no known support in law.
> It follows directly from contract law.
The falsity of that statement can be seen at a brief glance from the
fact that "a license granting unlimited unrevokable rights to the public
to use, modify, copy, etc." would be founded in copyright law, rather
than copyright law, without even considering the merits of the "public
> I think I'm beginning to see the problem here.
Nope, you're seeing only one of two independent arguments. Please see
> Dedicating a work to the public does not require that the copyright be
(1) If there's a copyright title extant, then by definition the article
is not public domain. That is incontrovertible.
(2) Separately and aside from that, the effect of a "public domain
dedication" is thus far legally indeterminate, for reasons previously
Cheers, "Don't use Outlook. Outlook is really just a security
Rick Moen hole with a small e-mail client attached to it."
email@example.com -- Brian Trosko in r.a.sf.w.r-j