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

Re: Public Domain again

* Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> [130201 02:24]:
> > Does this mean there are cases where the work cannot actually
> > be placed into the public domain ?
> In *most* jurisdictions, it appears to not be possible for a copyright
> holder to release their work into the public domain.  That's why CC0 exists
> as a workaround, to make a pseudo-public domain dedication of a work.

But in every jurisdictions you can waive almost all your rights
giving everyone and non-exclusive license. And I guess in most
juristictions it's important that the copyright holders precisly
expresses their opinion and not that they use some magic words.
(So I'd be suprised if any jurisdiction would translate a
"I hereby place this work in the public domain" to anything but
either making it public domain where possible or to a full permissive

> Works that are genuinely in the public domain (because they are old enough,

Note that old enough means the last author has to be death for a very
long time. While some countries only protect a work of foreign authors
if that were protected in their home countries, other protect for the
full time. Which means it is at least 70 years after the author's death
(or perhaps even 100).

> or because they were produced under circumstances which do not result in
> copyright attaching to the work in the first place)

I think there is no such circumstance that would not make it not allowed
for a significant percentage of even Debian Developers to handle that
work freely. (For example US government works are only public domain
within the US or countries that use the author's home country's rule
instead of their own rules).

> > * the same as above, but with a copyright <name> <year> next to it,
> >   (i made that last example, to be sure i get it)
> no, because these are contradictory statements.  Public domain means *the
> absence of copyright*.  If someone is claiming the work to both be in public
> domain and covered by copyright, they have failed to understand and we must
> assume the work is under copyright with no license grant.

It makes it very likely they have not understood it and thus leaving us
with no proper license. (Though there are situations where it might not
be that contradictionary, as it could also be the work's former

        Bernhard R. Link

Reply to: