On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jun 2016 04:41 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote: > >> Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> >>> http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html >> >> From that: >>> It might be ruled to create a global licence for unrestricted use. That >> > licence might or might not then be adjudicated to be revocable by >> > subsequent copyright owners (heirs, divorcing spouses, creditors). >> >> If that's possible, then could said heirs, divorcing spouses >> and creditors also revoke supposedly permanent rights granted >> under an explicit licence? Or is putting the word "irrevocable" >> in the licence enough to prevent that? > > Ask a real lawyer :-) > > This is why we should use licences that have been written and vetted by > actual lawyers. They're the experts.
I honestly don't see why people want to put their code into the public domain, when the MIT license is pretty close to that anyway. What's the point? ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
