Public domain software is not open-source?

[Alexander Terekhov]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Matthew Flaschen
<matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
[...]
> > He could not violate his own licence anyway, because -- obviously -- he
> > doesn't _need_ a licence to use a creative work whose copyright he owns
> > outright.
>
> Yes, that's why he can't violate the license.

Eh? According to Mr. Rosen himself his licenses are drafted as
contracts "in which the Licensor makes certain promises and accepts
certain obligations ... For example, the obligation to publish source
code is an obligation of the Licensor, not a licensee." (Source: "OSL
3.0: A Better License for Open Source Software")

Suppose Mr. Rosen transacts to me some object code claiming that it is
copyrighted by him and licensed to me under the OSL (and I choose to
accept it). If he refuses to provide me "a machine-readable copy of
the Source Code of the Original Work along with each copy of the
Original Work that Licensor [Mr. Rosen] distributes" or doesn't
"satisfy this obligation by placing a machine-readable copy of the
Source Code in an information repository reasonably calculated to
permit inexpensive and convenient access by You [me] for as long as
Licensor [Mr. Rosen] continues to distribute the Original Work" he
clearly is in breach of license contract.

regards,
alexander.

--
"12/21/2007 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT...
 01/22/2008 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT...
 02/19/2008 ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDAT(sic)...
 02/26/2008 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Laura Taylor Swain from
Daniel B. Ravicher...
 02/27/2008 ORDER that Defendants Verizon Communications, Inc. has
until March 14, 2008..."

 -- 1:07-cv-11070-LTS aka Never Beginning "GPL Enforcement" case