Re: License DSFG-free?
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 10:50:09AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:07:36PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 09:25:43AM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > > |You can do whatever you like with this package. The code is placed
> > > |at the public domain.
> > "Placing in the public domain" is not a valid concept in all
> > jurisdictions. It's not always possible to abandon copyright.
> > It's probably better to say explicitly what freedoms you intend to grant.
> In such jurisdictions, what are the legal rights of an author who has
> placed his work in the public domain in a jurisdiction where the public
> domain is honored? Would such a statement be treated as being equivalent
> to a very liberal license, or would it be treated as a no-op?
AIUI (and IANAL), it would be treated as a very liberal license, but
the exact boundaries of "very liberal" would be subject to interpretation
by the courts. I don't know if this would include the full range of
the right to distribute modified versions -- there might be some
limitations related to e.g. principles of artistic integrity.
To put things in perspective: I have no qualms about using code marked
"public domain". I just prefer to avoid the ambiguity in code that I
publish myself, and I recommend this to others too. At minimum, it
helps users who really don't know what "public domain" means; there's
plenty of confusion around the term.
to troll, v.: to explore, in an electronic forum, the subtle distinction
between being an idiot and pretending to be an idiot.