On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Tony Mechelynck < [email protected]> wrote: > > 2. "In the public domain". > </quote> > > This looks promising; but one part has a "note" in lawyerese and the other > a "defined term" in quotes, let us see... ah, I think this clinches it, and > since there is an "or" clause, no need (I think) to check the other: > > <quote> > GTN "In the public domain" > GSN This means "technology" or "software" which has been made available > ML 22 without restrictions upon its further dissemination. > Note Copyright restrictions do not remove "technology" or > "software" from being "in the public domain". > </quote> > > I believe that Vim is "in the public domain" within the definitions used in > that document (but of course, IANAL, nor do I play one on TV). >
No, I don't think that Vim is "in the public domain" at all or even according to this document. The definition you quoted has the key phrase "without restrictions upon its further dissemination." Even the first clause of Vim's license agreement here http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/uganda.html#license requires distributing the license itself alongside of any part of Vim that you choose to distribute yourself. I believe that this requirement, although trivial, constitutes a restriction upon further dissemination, which removes it from the public domain classification. I am similarly NAL, though. - Jordan Lewis -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
