--- Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 4/20/07, Birgitte SB
<birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
The Free Content Definition is to only to be used
to
evaluate a *license* not an individual work.
Yes, unless there is no license attached to the
work.
In that case we still have a problem. The perpetual
moral rights issue particularly comes into play with
public domain works. Which, obviously, are cases
where there is no license attached to the work.
An interesting point, but could we not extent the meaning of licence to
include one that is implicitly granted by the public by virtue of being
in the public domain.
I have always maintained that the public domain is not merely an absence
of ownership, but ownership by the public at large.
Ec