* M.K.Edwards :: > So I think it turns out I was right in the first place: continued > verbatim copying and distribution counts as "utilization", and the > only scope for argument is about how much bug-fixing you can do > after termination without being sued for "preparing" a new > derivative work.
anyway, to take this thread back to the topic, I ask: is there anything that would be accomplished by a "public domain" license that is *not* accomplished by putting the work under the MIT license? I don't think so. And, if I am right, to avoid license proliferation and other undesired (and undesirable) interactions with various jurisdictions' laws, it seems to me that the best thing to do if you want to donate your work to the public would be putting it under the MIT license. -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
