Public domain software is not open-source?

Eugene Wee eugenew at
Thu Mar 6 07:21:20 UTC 2008


John Cowan wrote:
> Philippe Verdy scripsit:
>> I did not say that he MUST put a copyright notice, but that it MUST do that
>> IF he wants to LICENCE it. Otherwise the licence is just FUD!
>> And YES! he is a liar if he gives a licence without a copyright statement,
>> i.e. an explicit claim of ownership of the rights covered by the licence.
> That turns out not to be the case.
> In all signatories to the Berne convention, every work fixed in a tangible
> medium, including a grocery list, is copyright.  No signatory may require
> particular formalities such as a copyright notice.

Ah, so would I be right to say that the following is just the AFL 3.0 
license preamble and it does not mean that not doing exactly what it 
says means the License does not apply?

"This Academic Free License (the "License") applies to any original work 
of authorship (the "Original Work") whose owner (the "Licensor") has 
placed the following licensing notice adjacent to the copyright notice 
for the Original Work:

Licensed under the Academic Free License version 3.0"

In other words, my understanding is correct, it is possible to license 
one's work under the AFL 3.0 without actually doing what the preamble 
states, e.g., by stating that "This copyrighted email is hereby licensed 
under AFL 3.0.", though perhaps if not for the context "AFL" would be 

Eugene Wee

More information about the License-discuss mailing list