Public domain software is not open-source?

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Philippe Verdy wrote:
> 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.

He is a liar if he gives a license without having the necessary rights.
It's advisable to get an explicit statement like "I own the copyright"
in a license agreement, but no legal necessity. 

And besides we were talking about a copyright _notice_, i.e. the
oldfashioned US "Copyright $YEAR $YOURNAMEHERE" thingy. Possibly
with some Buenos Aires-flavored "All rights reserved" on top.
I really don't see the necessity for that at all. 

> The fact that he sent the email proves nothing, and certainly not that he
> owned the right on the exposed content (the text in the mail could have been
> stolen, or sent by someone else under his name without his consent).

Even a license text accompanying the software proves nothing. I can
take your software, add the text of the GPL and change all copyright
statements to include my name as owner. Who will be able to tell
the forgery?

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
              Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/