On 13/12/2007, Sean Middleditch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Something like Boost's license, I'd say. And it can't be public > > > domain, see http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj16.htm : > > > "there is nothing that permits the dumping of intellectual property > > > into the public domain — except as happens in due course when any > > > applicable copyrights expire" > > > > Excellent link, lots of food for thought. > > I didn't put much faith in that page due to a complete lack of > references, so I searched around a bit, and it seems accurate. Here's a > much more obtuse but better defended essay on public domain. It > includes a section on public domain software and why it's not really > possible to to do with today's laws: > > http://www.edwardsamuels.com/copyright/beyond/articles/public.html > > The gist of the arguments against public domain dedication are that > modern law goes so far as to protect authors against putting works in > the public domain, because the author might not understand what he's > doing until it's too late. The laws have become very pro-producer, > con-consumer (which, etymologically, I find freaking hilarious). >
Thanks, that's a good site to know. You might be interested in Rosen's book instead, which (having read the treeware version, I was quite surprised to find out) is available online at http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm . I knew of the short article, so I didn't go hunting in the book, but the book does site U.S.C. fairly often. It's not law-school rigorous, but I appreciate the grounding it gave me in the concepts and issues. (Of course, you may also be past that.) ~ Scott -- Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
