For Approval: Academic Citing License

Rick Moen rick at
Mon Sep 27 18:27:34 UTC 2004

Quoting Alex Rousskov (rousskov at

> Which
>   (a) confirms an obvious fact that many authors are clueless
> and
>   (b) demonstrates "an understanding different from that of Rick Moen" understanding that, moveover, differs from that of _copyright law_. 
Thus my point.

Did you have one, other than to demonstrate poor judgement in targets
for badly conceived personal potshots?

> I hope you are not implying that only Public Domain projects on Source 
> Forge misrepresent derivative work status?

I hope you are not unable to read and comprehend my earlier message in
which I point out misclassifications in all _three_ categories (or 
unable to notice yourself searching a change of topic after having
miscalculated rather badly.)

But, since you raise the question, in my licence-audit of about 800 PalmOS 
works claimed to be open source (including "public domain"), "public
domain" did indeed comprise an overwhelming majority of those with
serious licensing problems.

Cheers,   "Why is the alphabet in that order?  Is it because of that song?"
Rick Moen                                              -- Steven Wright
rick at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list