Comment by sillysaurus3 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sillysaurus3 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Specifically, his belief is that God forbids networking in TempleOS, not other OS's. (Otherwise he wouldn't maintain a website, upload YouTube videos, or comment on HN.) It may not be a good idea to add networking to TempleOS, since he may take that as an affront to his religion.

Also, if code has no license, then apparently it's equivalent to having an "All Rights Reserved" notice, preventing any re-use of the code at all, according to http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2013/05/21/unlicensed-cod...

"Experienced developers won’t touch unlicensed code because they have no legal right to use it." http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2013/05/23/unlicensed-cod...

So if TempleOS has no license, then it may not be strictly legal to add networking support and then re-release the code. Glancing at the "Downloads" section shows no mention of a license. Of course, no one is going to be able to enforce those protections in Terry's case, but if it's likely to simultaneously offend him and be illegal, is it a good idea?

What a strange situation.

EDIT: TempleOS turns out to be in the public domain.

According to http://www.templeos.org/Wb/Accts/TS/Wb2/TempleOS.html, it's public domain. There shouldn't be any licensing troubles, at least.

TempleOS is an x86_64, multi-tasking, multi-cored, public domain, open source, ring-0-only, single-address-map (identity-mapped), non networked, PC operating system for recreational programming.

Aha, there it is. Thank you!

I wish there was a way to simply ask Terry if he'd have a problem with someone adding networking support. Does anyone know if he responds to email?

He has for me before.

He does.

> There shouldn't be any licensing troubles, at least.

Under many (if not most) jurisdictions it's not possible to put things in the public domain, and saying you do so without providing an actual license is the same as not doing anything (aka "All Rights Reserved", the restrictive default).

Even in the US, the idea of putting things in the public domain (rather than it falling into the public domain) is a bit iffy and AFAIK has never been tested in court.

Provably false. http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html

It'd be nice if djb could back up what he says about waiving copyright in Europe.

In french and french derived copyright law, you can not resign all you rigths. "The moral rights are inalienable, perpetual and inviolable" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_France#Moral_...

Which is exactly what djb says about Germany. It doesn’t affect public domain status.

Hum, it feels to me there are subtle differences between German and French law. Notably, the right of withdrawal and the respect of the work's integrity go beyond German law.

In French, a piece of work is not "put" in public domain but is said to "fell". It's not something that needs doing, it's something that happen at the right time.

Anyway, I'm probably wrong since I'm not a lawyer :-)

That's what he says, indeed. What he failed to provide, though, is proof.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com