Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia
Quoting Don Armstrong (don@donarmstrong.com):
> We've established that. I maintain that the absence of caselaw is
> merely attributable to the difficulty of finding an actionable claim.
Thus, you have an opinion.
> You maintain that it's because dedicating a work to the public domain
> is meaningless.
This I did not say.
> It would do much to advance your case if you would put forth an
> argument delineating why a work properly dedicated to the public
> domain would be meaningless, or at least devoid of the commonly
> understood meaning.
I have no intention of supporting an assertion I never made.
> My argument[1], 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.
> I'll try to be clearer: The facts surrounding works dedicated to the
> public domain is, frankly, uninteresting to me. I really only wish to
> discuss the law regarding them.
That is a useful ambition. Pity that there is no caselaw, and no
specified mechanism in statutes for an extant, unexpired copyright to be
destroyed by the owner. If you hear of relevant case citations, I will
be very interested to see them.
--
Cheers, "I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate
Rick Moen those who do. And, for the people who like country music,
rick@linuxmafia.com denigrate means 'put down'." -- Bob Newhart
Reply to: