My guess would be that the content is released into the public domain since you can't sue because there is no proof that you are the copyright holder. Comrade RIngo Kamens
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Paul de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IANAL... > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 03:43:09AM +1000, Sunnz wrote: > | Hi, just wondering what's your opinion on this... > | > | If one were to release some code under an ISC or BSD-like 2 clause > | license, but under the name of anonymous, would it effectively as if > | it was released as public domain? > > Well .. as the author of a work, you are the copyright holder to it. > If you then release it under some permissive license, you basically > give up some of the rights that copyright gives you, granting others > a license to copy, modify and/or redistribute etc. Using ISC or > BSD-like licenses, you indicate that you want to keep some (very > basic) but give up most rights. > > So you want the world to know that *you* want to retain some rights > but not who you are ? That does not compute. Who wants to retain those > rights exactly ? > > Seems to me like a legal can of worms you do not want to open. > > In answer to your question, my guess would be no. I would guess that > effectively you've given up no rights whatsoever and that the license > is void if it lists an alias or 'anonymous' as the creator of the > work. > > Cheers, > > Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd > > -- >>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+ > +++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-] > http://www.weirdnet.nl/
