Re: source code written by monkey
Arnoud Engelfriet <email@example.com> writes:
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > A package for which we have no explicit license to redistribute
> > cannot go into any of main, contrib, or non-free. It simply cannot
> > be legally redistributed at all without that explicit grant of
> > license.
> The author claims that the package is in the public domain because
> it was created by a monkey and hence copyright law does not apply.
The author gives no backing for this outlandish legal theory.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even if the claim
of "my monkey wrote it" were true, there is no argument given to
conclude any particular legal status; merely an assertion that "no
copyright" should apply.
> While these claims seem somewhat far-fetched, the end result is
> still that the author has asserted the work is public domain.
The assertion of one person's opinion, without backing by reference to
law that supports that opinion, is not sufficient grounds to believe
that is how the law actually operates.
Further, as has been pointed out before, the author distributes from
Germany, where "public domain" (AFAICT) does not exist. Whatever the
provenance or legal status of the work, there's no reason to assume
"if written by monkey, then public domain" even has any meaning in
\ “There are always those who think they know what is your |
`\ responsibility better than you do.” —Ralph Waldo Emerson |