Public domain software is not open-source?

Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen at
Wed Mar 5 22:40:19 UTC 2008

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 3:04 AM, Matthew Flaschen
> <matthew.flaschen at> 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 ...

Doesn't matter. Mr. Rosen can't sue himself for breach of contract either.

Matt Flaschen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list