Subject: Re: Licenses vs. public domain
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 15:42:40 -0400

Karsten Self wrote:
> Copyright ownership is retained under the BSD license.  Protections
> under copyright law, including those listed under 17 USC sections
> 502-510[1].  Despite the liberal terms of the BSD and MIT licenses, the
> original author(s) retain copyright, and can utilize copyright
> protections in the event terms are not adhered to.
> The key distinction of the Artistic License is that it specifically
> allows for modified code to be placed under the Public Domain [2].
> Once a work has entered into the public domain, effective control over it
> by the original author(s) has lapsed.  While the Artistic License applies
> to first-generation derived works, it may not apply to second-generation
> derived works.  This to my mind is the key difference.
> Ben Tilly -- consider these remarks as responding to your point as well.

So considered, and I still believe that you are mistaken.

Part 3 of the license are necessary conditions to make local
modifications.  In order to redistribute your changes you need to meet
the far more restrictive part 4.

Also note that part 3a does not ALLOW you to make modifications public
domain.  If you contribute, and wish to make that contribution public
domain, that is acceptable.  But if you were to take the source,
reformat it, and then attempt to release the diff as public domain, I
am sure that Larry would be able to say quite a bit about that...