Daniel Bastos <dbastos+0### [at] toledocom> wrote:
> How much non-gnu must a system be to be non-gnu? I think the answer
> here is all BSD systems which were free.

  Which compiler they used to compile themselves, if not gcc?
(I'm just being curious here, because I don't know.)

> The BSD license is the most ridiculous one around. It can be called
> the superfluous-egotistical-public-domain-license. 

  I don't think using the term "public domain" with the BSD license is
correct. The license doesn't remove copyright, which is what "public
domain" means.

  (In fact, most western legal systems don't support the concept of
"removing copyright" from a work at all. In other words, the idea of
publishing something "into the public domain" is not supported by law.
There is no legal mechanism to do that in most countries, AFAIK. Copyright
is not only automatic, it's in fact inevitable. You can't get rid of it.

  The only case where a work loses copyright is by natural expiration
(which is a ridiculously long time). Also certain works by the government
itself are automatically non-copyrighted in most countries, and thus
directly in public domain. However, that's it. No other means.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message