Quoting Don Armstrong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > I should have been more clear that I was refering to licenses in the > general sense.
Oh, so now you're attempting to change the subject! I see. You had said: My argument[1], for reference, is that a work dedicated to the public domain is equivalent to a work with a license granting unlimited unrevokable rights to the public to use, modify, copy, etc. You claimed that this "followed directly from contract law", to which I replied: The falsity of that statement can be seen at a brief glance from the fact that "a license granting unlimited unrevokable rights to the public to use, modify, copy, etc." would be founded in copyright law, rather than copyright law, without even considering the merits of the "public domain dedications". > You are absolutely correct, though, in pointing out that Copyright Law > plays a part in the rights that are granted to the public without a > License.... The other gentleman did not say that. Moreover, it is quite clear that contract law need not be involved in "the rights that are granted to the public without a license". For example, if I write a codebase and put it up for public ftp without an explicit statement of licence, the rights conveyed to downloaders are granted solely through action of copyright law (forming a default licence that omits the right to redistribute and create derivative works, among others). -- "Is it not the beauty of an asynchronous form of discussion that one can go and make cups of tea, floss the cat, fluff the geraniums, open the kitchen window and scream out it with operatic force, volume, and decorum, and then return to the vexed glowing letters calmer of mind and soul?" -- The Cube, forum3000.org
