<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">#qt p.qt-MsoNormal{margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Aptos", sans-serif;}
#qt a:link{color:rgb(70, 120, 134);text-decoration-color:currentcolor;text-decoration-line:underline;text-decoration-style:solid;text-decoration-thickness:auto;}
p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div>On Tue, Dec 17, 2024, at 12:10, Wayne Thornton wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt" style="overflow-wrap:break-word;"><div class="qt-WordSection1"><p class="qt-MsoNormal">Where the PBZC stands out from the CC0 is that it defines the types of software and documentation to which it applies, and permits use of the public domain software within commercially available software so long as the commercially available
software makes public the portions of source code which were used subject to the PBZC.<br></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>IANAL, and I don't play one on TV, but this seems untenable: if the copyright holder applies a 'license' which disclaims their copyright interest in the work, they will not have any standing or mechanism to enforce such a restriction. The only thing that gives them such standing in the normal case is their ownership of a copyright interest in the work.<br></div><div><br></div></body></html>