Public domain software is not open-source?

[Alexander Terekhov]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Matthew Flaschen
<matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > 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 ...
>
> Doesn't matter. Mr. Rosen can't sue himself for breach of contract either.

Are you okay? In "..." part you snipped I made it pretty clear that
licensee (me) can sue (in contract) licensor (Mr. Rosen).

Mr. Rosen is on record:

"Most open source licenses you'll find at www.opensource.org and all proprietary
software licenses you'll find anywhere are to be interpreted under
contract law. They can be
enforced, like other contracts are enforced, against both a licensor
and a licensee.

Contracts can almost always be enforced against a licensor. If a
licensor promises you
the source code, or promises not to interfere with your lawful uses of
the software, he is bound
by those promises as long as you reasonably relied on those promises
when you accepted the
contract. The general rule is that the author of a contract is bound
by his own words."

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