>> It's a simple, permissive license, but it's a license.

I don't think it's that permissive - it could be interpreted as a license to use the software, but it makes no explicit allowance for redistribution.

...are you arguing with yourself?

> ...are you arguing with yourself?

You don't?

No, I'm expanding on my thoughts. I explained the general idea first, and then described what was actually going on.

The fact they don't know what a license is doesn't invalidate anything I said.

Is public domain a license, or is it no license?

I'm wondering the same thing.

> Is public domain a license, or is it no license?

Public domain means nobody owns the copyright to that work. Anyone can use it for any purpose whatsoever, because there's nobody to tell them they can't.

So, no, it's not a license. It's putting something in a category where a license wouldn't even make sense.

"Public domain" is a legal status.

A public domain dedication is a statement intended to create that legal status, but may in legal effect be actually a form of gratuitous license and/or promise not to sue.