[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia

Quoting Anthony DeRobertis (asd@suespammers.org):

> Why not do something like:
>       <statement (maybe) releasing work to public domain>
>       If the above is not legally possible, then (name[s]) grant(s) you
>       and any other party receiving this code a perpetual, irrevocable,
>       royalty-free license to [everything copyright law prohibits].
This is great, except that I think we need a list here of everything 
copyright law prohibits!  Which is well beyone my ability, given 
the numerous expansions in copyright law!

>       (name[s]) additionally grant(s) you a royalty-free... license
>       to do anything else that you would be allowed to do with a
>       work in the public domain.
>       It is the intent of (name[s]) that this work be treated as if
>       the "public domain" statement above is valid.
> What would be wrong with that? Best case, it is public domain; worst 
> case, it is public domain in all but name.

I'd like to nail it as open as humanly possible, so I'd like to apply to 
to anyone receiving a derivative work based on the work as well, unless
there's a legal complication in that.

Rick Moen said:
>I like it; it would probably work (my guess).  The only thing wrong 
>with it is there's no exclusion of warranties and damages, a la BSD or 
>MIT/X I still can't for the life of me understand why anyone would 
>_not_ want those on a work one is handing out for free, but to each his 

Issuing a warranty disclaimer is fine and good.  Requiring subsequent 
users to reproduce your warranty disclaimer is worth avoiding in a 
"public-domain-in-all-but-name" license.  :-)  (The warranty disclaimer 
is not really part of the license proper.)

Perhaps we can polish up the above license draft and turn it into the 
"Effective Public Domain License"?  Then push it at Creative Commons?  

--Nathanael Nerode

Reply to: