Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If the work is truly in the public domain, then this request has no legal > force. It is not a license, because the author does not hold a copyright > and has no authority to stop you from using it if you don't agree to > these terms.
That's why I'm arguing that we ought to assume that the author wasn't aware of the legal meaning of "public domain" when he wrote that to Paolo. There's a real possibility that he just thought that it sounded like a cool legalese-ish way of saying that it doesn't cost money (for example). Since we have evidence (namely, the existence of a restrictive license in the source) that "public domain" wasn't in fact what the author meant, I fear that we would be in bad faith if we just act as if it were. I'd suggest that Paolo should verify with him explicitly that he now considers it OK to make and distribute modification without telling him. Probably he should also ask permission to remove the misleading license from the source code. -- Henning Makholm "I ... I have to return some videos."
