[License-review] veto against Unlicence (was Re: [License-discuss] Certifying MIT-0)

Russell Nelson nelson at crynwr.com
Mon May 11 03:35:55 UTC 2020

On 5/10/20 4:41 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> instead the code has no license whatsoever. 

But this is not any kind of disaster. It simply means that the code 
remains copyrighted BUT since you (presumably) received the work with 
permission, you may continue to use and modify it. Copyright *literally* 
protects copying, not use. In the meantime, since the author's intention 
is clear, a court may settle the meaning of the "license" even though no 
copyright is claimed. Since there is no opposing party, such a court 
ruling would be inexpensive to obtain.

It's not even clear that there is anyone with standing to sue for 
copyright infringement. The author has clearly denied the existence of a 
copyright. The courts are unlikely to assign him one against his wishes. 
Who, then, has standing? Who, then, even has any interest in a lawsuit?

More information about the License-review mailing list