Just wanted to mention that not everything is so peachy in the "public domain".
Some jurisdictions do not recognize the right of an author to dedicate a work to the public domain; and there is no single legal definition for what is the "public domain" that every jurisdiction agrees on. Most jurisdictions are in fact copyright-by-default (one of the reasons why we need to be explicit in our projects). SQLite is an oft-quoted example of software in the public domain, but they are constantly reminded of legal issues because of their choice: http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html http://www.mail-archive.com/sqlite-users@sqlite.org/msg24372.html A more recent example is when Unlicense.org came under fire, because it would not be considered by the OSI: http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/000052.html I don't mean to derail this thread, just wanted to voice my opinion that not everything is so black-and-white. "There's a worldwide default-copyright regime, opting out of it is simply problematic, and attempts to do so risk creating non-deterministic effects that depend on the jurisdiction and judge. And that's the pity of it: Using a very simple standard permissive licence such as MIT/X11 License or even a peculiar and cramped but somewhat standard 3-line licence like Fair Licence achieves everything Bendiken and others want (_and_ actually escape warranty liability) except for the ideological point about getting 'out of the copyright game'." -- Chad Perrin Cheers, Norbert _______________________________________________ Camping-list mailing list Camping-list@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/camping-list
