Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia
Quoting Anthony DeRobertis (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> Why not do something like:
> <statement (maybe) releasing work to public domain>
> If the above is not legally possible, then (name[s]) grant(s) you
> and any other party receiving this code a perpetual, irrevocable,
> royalty-free license to [everything copyright law prohibits].
> (name[s]) additionally grant(s) you a royalty-free... license
> to do anything else that you would be allowed to do with a
> work in the public domain.
> It is the intent of (name[s]) that this work be treated as if
> the "public domain" statement above is valid.
> What would be wrong with that? Best case, it is public domain; worst
> case, it is public domain in all but name.
I like it; it would probably work (my guess). The only thing wrong with
it is there's no exclusion of warranties and damages, a la BSD or MIT/X
I still can't for the life of me understand why anyone would _not_ want
those on a work one is handing out for free, but to each his own.
Cheers, "I used to be on the border of insanity. However, due
Rick Moen to pressing political concerns, I recently had to invade."
email@example.com -- Kurt Montandon, in r.a.sf.w.r-j