Subject: Re: For Approval: Academic Citing License
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:27:34 -0700

Quoting Alex Rousskov (rousskov@measurement-factory.com):

> Which
>   (a) confirms an obvious fact that many authors are clueless
> and
>   (b) demonstrates "an understanding different from that of Rick Moen"

...an understanding that, moveover, differs from that of _copyright law_. 
Thus my point.

Did you have one, other than to demonstrate poor judgement in targets
for badly conceived personal potshots?

> I hope you are not implying that only Public Domain projects on Source 
> Forge misrepresent derivative work status?

I hope you are not unable to read and comprehend my earlier message in
which I point out misclassifications in all _three_ categories (or 
unable to notice yourself searching a change of topic after having
miscalculated rather badly.)

But, since you raise the question, in my licence-audit of about 800 PalmOS 
works claimed to be open source (including "public domain"), "public
domain" did indeed comprise an overwhelming majority of those with
serious licensing problems.

-- 
Cheers,   "Why is the alphabet in that order?  Is it because of that song?"
Rick Moen                                              -- Steven Wright
rick@linuxmafia.com