Re: public domain, take ∞
Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
> bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here
> might have any ideas for improving the wording of the following license
> # Let this be known to all concerned: It is the specific intent of the
> # author of this script that any party who may have access to it always
> # treat it and its contents as though it were a work to which any and all
> # copyrights have expired.
> I thought about "s/author/sole author/" but decided against it as not
> generic enough. I can see how deciding against it may make it rather
> unclear as to whose intent is being expressed, but I think that would be
> rather moot anyway in the event of any dispute. I now cut the ribbon
> opening this to the free-for-all of opinions...
"irrevocable intent" is probably better. :-/
Also, intent doesn't mean action. :-)
"The author of this script hereby grants irrevocable permission to any party
who may have access to it to treat it as though it were a work to which any
and all copyrights have expired."
I think that would be an improvement.
Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...