| |||||||||||||
This is a mistake, but he also provided a license, so it doesn't really matterThis is a mistake, but he also provided a license, so it doesn't really matterPosted Nov 30, 2007 17:01 UTC (Fri) by charlieb (subscriber, #23340)In reply to: This is a mistake, but he also provided a license, so it doesn't really matter by shieldsd Parent article: qmail released into the public domain
Providing a license is mutually exclusive with placing into the public domain. You are entitled to your opinion as to what DJB should have done, but the decision is his to make. He's not "in error" - he's just done something other than what you would have done. > ... though this requires interpreting what he means by "etc." "etc" is not defined (no longer defined) by DJB, it's defined by the legal definition of "public domain".
(Log in to post comments)
not necessarily Posted Nov 30, 2007 17:27 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] It used to be common in the early 90s, before people were as sophisticated as they are now about licenses, to see code posted on Usenet with a comment like "this code is in the public domain. You can do anything you want with it as long as you don't make money off of it". That's contradictory, of course, and there's ever a dispute, a judge might find that the second statement trumps the first.If DJB's statement placing the code in the public domain contains any words indicating other terms, then he hasn't really put it in the public domain. I haven't parsed his message carefully, so I don't know. The main reason for a software author to prefer the BSD license to "public domain", especially if he/she is an American, is liability. The BSD license has a loud "no warranty" clause; without terms like this, if a defect in DJB's software causes anyone any harm, it's conceivable that DJB could be held to be legally responsible.
|
|||||||||||||