On 9/26/06, Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
> > of: "The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
> > domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the
> > author(s) place no restrictions on this script's usage."
>
> Where is that standardised? For English authors, I'd prefer the OP's
> statement to this one, but that may be different in countries where
> the government copyright agency doesn't use 'in the public domain' to
> mean it's available to the general public.
It's not 'really' standardised, it is used however by some big
projects, e.g. Wikipedia, to release stuff as PD. Also as I said it's
something along the lines of that, not that exact wording.
One of the exact wordings used by Wikipedia (from Template:PD-self[1]) is
: I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain.
: This applies worldwide.
: In case this is not legally possible,
: I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any
: conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
More can be found from Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags[2].
I would just recommend to anyone who wants to PD something to just put
a 'No Rights Reserved' license, as it is legally unambiguous and works
in pretty much all jurisdictions.
Do you have any example of such a 'No Rights Reserved' license?
I thought that the best one could do would be to use the MIT-license,
since there isn't any (generally known) license which would give the
recipient more rights. (And custom licenses are generally frowned
upon.)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-self
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Public_domain
--
Markus Laire
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
