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