Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

[Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>]

Quoting Don Armstrong (don@donarmstrong.com):

> I should have been more clear that I was refering to licenses in the 
> general sense.

Oh, so now you're attempting to change the subject!  I see.

You had said:

   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.

You claimed that this "followed directly from contract law", to which I
replied:

   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
   domain dedications".

> You are absolutely correct, though, in pointing out that Copyright Law
> plays a part in the rights that are granted to the public without a
> License....

The other gentleman did not say that.  Moreover, it is quite clear that
contract law need not be involved in "the rights that are granted to the
public without a license".  For example, if I write a codebase and put
it up for public ftp without an explicit statement of licence, the
rights conveyed to downloaders are granted solely through action of
copyright law (forming a default licence that omits the right to
redistribute and create derivative works, among others).

-- 
"Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and 
make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window 
and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to 
the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org