Public domain software is not open-source?

Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen at
Thu Mar 6 15:55:18 UTC 2008

Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Matthew Flaschen [mailto:matthew.flaschen at] wrote:
>> It is your responsibility to verify the license if you choose 
>> to rely on it, not the other way around.
> I have exactly the COMPLETE REVERSE opinion (and the law favors my opinion,
> at least in my country,

What law?

> I refuse to take responsaibility about accepting the licence without having
> someone in front of me tht accepts the resposaibility that the licence is
> legitimate.

Again, that's your choice.  But there's no law binding the licensor to 
make things easy for you.

> It' not up to the consumer to take the responsability if what he is accepting proves later to be arsenic
> that will have killed him!

This is product liability law, and entirely separate issue.  Most FOSS 
licenses severely limit liability anyway.

> A licence is not an assertion of ownership,

I never said it was.

> The licence, even if it is approved, must be completed with the explicit
> claim of rights signed by the right owner himself. Otherwise the licence
> remains unenforcable and is completely void,

No, it doesn't.  There is nothing in the law to void such a license. 
You keep talking about what you prefer, without citing actual legislation.

Matt Flaschen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list