Re: New 'Public Domain' Licence
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 04:48:57PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Yes... because SO many works are released directly into the Public
I have been on this list for about 6 weeks, and I have seen no less than
three active threads regarding public domain licenses. A minority,
perhaps, but certainly there are people interested in this.
> wishes of the few. If you really want to ensure your works stay
> forever free, then make sure you teach your mate and offspring (the
> only folks who can exercise your termination right other than
> yourself) the value of your decisions.
I'm not worried about my works staying free. I'm worried about people
who want to use my works being sure that my works will stay free.
> I like the Public Domain, don't get me wrong... but I dislike strong
> armed corporations more, so I think the balance struck by Congress
> works pretty well.
Well, clearly I don't. :) The root cause of this problem is Congress,
not an inherent balance. I don't *want* to license my work to a
corporation in an irrevocable way. I want to put it in the public domain
in an irrevocable way. But because there's no explicit way to do that
(and I must fake my way through by using an extremely permissive
license), both cases fall under the same category.
With well-written legislation, they don't need to.
> You sound like a corporate lawyer... they would love nothing more than for
> the freedom of contract to be absolute. Imagine situations where you sign
Now you're just being mean. I happen to agree completely with Glenn's
statements. I'm not only not a corporate lawyer, but am spending
considerable effort trying to figure out how in the world to just give
away intellectual works which I have created on my own time. I'm sorry
if that seems cold-hearted and corporate to you.