Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Ben Finney writes ("Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright"):
> > Rather, I think such a declaration is not established to be an
> > effective divestment of copyright in all the jurisdictions where
> > Debian recipients operate, and the risk to them is unacceptable —
>
> Are you aware of _any_ case where a piece of software was released
> with a statement from its copyrightholders saying it was "public
> domain", but where later the copyrightholders reneged on the implied
> permissions ?
I'm not. But we are both well aware of cases where a later, *different*
copyright holder makes an already-distributed work non-free by taking
advantage of unclear or contradictory terms in that work's copyright
status.
> We're not talking about a situation where the whole thing might be a
> deliberate trap. If someone like IBM or Oracle came out with a `public
> domain' statement we should be very suspicious - but that's not (ever)
> what we're dealing with.
The copyright holder can change. If Oracle or IBM acquire copyright in
the work, does that count as “coming out with” a public domain
statement? I'd say that question doesn't much matter.
What does matter in that case is that the work would simultaneously have
a past assertion of public domain status, and also lack a clear grant of
license.
That's a situation to avoid, and we can't avoid the future copyright
acquisition; we can only avoid accepting that work without clear grant
of copyright license in the first place.
> > [the risk is unacceptable] especially because it's quite easy for
> > the copyright holder to correctly apply a known simple free-software
> > license that grants all the relevant permissions.
>
> I don't see how it allegedly being `easy' to fix increases the risk to
> Debian and our users and downstreams.
The risk isn't increased, it stays the same. The risk becomes less
acceptable, because it's quite easy to avoid: just apply a
known-enforcible widely-understood free software license.
--
\ “Anyone who puts a small gloss on [a] fundamental technology, |
`\ calls it proprietary, and then tries to keep others from |
_o__) building on it, is a thief.” —Tim O'Reilly, 2000-01-25 |
Ben Finney
Reply to: