Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: public domain, take ?$B!g
- From: Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:08:31 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060925202124.GA22191@miami.connexer.com> <20060925204545.GA3957@universal.soleil> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20060929090031.GA59499@stack.nl>
<posted & mailed>
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote:
>> Perhaps the statement should be granting the recipient "all rights
>> otherwise reserved to the copyright holder".
> Maybe it's better to reformulate it as a non-assert instead of
> a license. There's more than just the exclusive rights.
> To the extent permitted by law, the copyright holder of this work
> hereby declares he will not, now or at any time in the future, exercise
> any right under copyright, related rights or moral rights applicable to
> the work against any person or legal entity. This declaration shall be
> construed to the detriment of the copyright holder to the maximum
> extent permitted by law. Invalidity or unenforceability of any part of
> the above shall not affect any other part.
Finally an actual lawyer steps in. :-)
Nice draft. I think that's an excellent idea
Only one quibble, but it's an important one: it doesn't waive the rights of
heirs or assignees. To the extent possible, we want to do that *too*. Any
> (You can't waive your right to protest against mutilation of
> your literary work, and software is a literary work according
> to Berne and WIPO.)
Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...