Can OSI specify that public domain is open source?

[Karl Fogel]

Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> writes:
>> That's slightly different.  They require that because whatever original
>> code remains is still under that original license.  But the presence of
>> that original header doesn't mean that your new code is automatically
>> under the same license.  You may choose to "reuse" the header, because
>> you like that license.  But you might include another copyright notice
>> that describes the different copyright on your changes.
>
>Are you somehow claiming that removing the license from the file is
>legally kosher, then?  Considering it would directly contradict the text
>of the license, I find that a bit difficult to believe.  About the only
>way I can think of to make your scenario work is to distribute your
>changes as a diff.

No, not at all.  A file can contain *multiple* copyright notices, each
applying to different sections.  There's nothing magical about a single
header at the top of a file.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20110907/e950387a/attachment.sig>