> -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> On > Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 3:44 PM > To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org; license- > rev...@lists.opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] veto against Unlicence (was Re: Certifying MIT- > 0) > |Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or > |distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled > |binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any > |means. > > This is not a licence statement (which would not be valid anyway, because a > licence is issued as copyright instrument while PD means absence of copyright > protection) but an explanation of the previous paragraph. > I'm curious for the authority behind these rather definitive statements of yours, and how those authorities would not be equally applicable to the MIT and BSD "license" statements (neither of which use the term "license," although MIT does use "sublicense"). What is a "copyright instrument" which is required to effectuate a license under your understanding of how such an instrument is effectuated. If there are rather strict formalities for creating a valid license, there might be quite a few "licenses" on the OSI list which now need to be removed.
_______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
