[License-review] veto against Unlicence

[Thorsten Glaser]

Josh Berkus dixit:

>Can you get a European or other non-US attorney to back you up on this?

I don’t have the kind of money to even talk to an attorney
for five minutes.

>attorney has objected.  Despite the enthusiasm of your arguments, you
>are not an attorney, yet your arguments rest on legal grounds.

No, on simple reading of both the name (“Unlicense”[sic!] meaning
“not a licence”), the licence authors’ intent (“The Unlicense is a
template for disclaiming copyright […], in other words, it is a template
for dedicating your software to the public domain”), their statement
of what it is (“a copyright waiver […] with the no-warranty statement”,
notice absence of a licence here as well), the wording itself (twice
PD dedication, no licence) and (least importantly) the simple fact that,
if something is PD, a licence cannot be granted because there’s no need
for it (the US military people here said even so, that this is a problem
for them). Simple reading comprehension.

>(b) violation is a statutory crime even without prosecution.

§ 106 UrhG (use of a protected work without permission), which in
itself is indeed only prosecuted on request, EXCEPT if § 108a also
applies (doing so commercially). See
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/BJNR012730965.html#BJNR012730965BJNE014804377
and the following paragraphs (§ 108a is excepted from § 109).

I cannot believe I have to argue this even…

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
22:20⎜<asarch> The crazy that persists in his craziness becomes a master
22:21⎜<asarch> And the distance between the craziness and geniality is
only measured by the success 18:35⎜<asarch> "Psychotics are consistently
inconsistent. The essence of sanity is to be inconsistently inconsistent