Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 21st Apr 2012 19:25 UTC
Permalink for comment 515182
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-25
He said "license with the least restrictions possible". He didn't say "give up copyright". Copyright has built in restrictions - licenses can either expand them or relax them - all the way to the point where it has no legal ramification other than being a simple authorship acknowledgement.
You can't license software into the public domain - public domain software has no owner. You need an owner in order to license something. It is simply absent of copyright.