Hi,
I'm writing a backup program for GNOME on Debian-ish distros (specifically
Debian and Ubuntu) and I want the some of the documentation to be public domain,
however I can't find any good resources on how to relinquish copyright.
The closest thing I've found
I thought I saw a conversation somewhere that said saying a license "is
in the public domain" isn't good enough. What is Debian's position on
this WRT the DFSG?
--
=
* http://b
ng
> a game for example.
May I understand that as the code being in the public domain?
Greetings and thanks,
Miry
(Please, CC me, as I'm not in the list)
Miry
__
LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo.
Llamadas a fijo
Hi *,
mdk, module devel. kit, is a tool for libgocr module creation.
I made a ITP for both.
The problem is in the README attached. It is the only reference in the
tarball that recall a use license (libgocr is LGPL).
AFAIK Public Domain is a 'class' of licenses, not a license.
Sho
David Mandelberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm writing a backup program for GNOME on Debian-ish distros (specifically
> Debian and Ubuntu) and I want the some of the documentation to be public
> domain,
> however I can't find any good resources on how to relinquish copyright
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 02:21:33PM -0500, David Mandelberg wrote:
> I'm writing a backup program for GNOME on Debian-ish distros (specifically
> Debian and Ubuntu) and I want the some of the documentation to be public
> domain,
> however I can't find any good resource
ehavior. Let's say
that you take your copyright and shout out to the world, "you can all use
this however you want." Is that truly public domain? Could be you have just
granted a very open license and retain the copyright... and that the license
is revocable. Copyright assumes you r
xplicitly
> grant... so you have to explicitly relinquish everything.
That would be one of the primary ways in which it is acutely
pro-corporate and pro-lawyer.
> To be honest, I'm not entirely sure you can truly put anything into the
> public
> domain until the term o
> To be honest, I'm not entirely sure you can truly put anything into the
> > public domain until the term of copyright has expired.
>
> This varies with jurisdiction.
>
> > All that being said, Creative Commons are smart people and write good
> > stuff. I think you
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 12:24:39PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> The US-centric critiques have been addressed[1].
...or not. That citation was inexplicably random. Did you simply pick
the first thing which had somebody to do with CC and things which
aren't in the US? I can't imagine how else you co
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 02:11 pm, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 12:24:39PM -0800, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > The US-centric critiques have been addressed[1].
>
> ...or not. That citation was inexplicably random. Did you simply pick
> the first thing which had somebody to do with CC
erns clearly, even for
someone who has a passing familiarity with English law. I'm also
not sure whether English law applies to the person wanting to
place material into the public domain.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, than
plain to your parliament member. :-/
The various public domain dedications you will see vary in the degree to which
they add complicated verbiage to try to get around this problem. None of
them is perfect, because it's a serious legal problem, but Creative Commons's
does pretty well. (Bra
I've never heard of this. I've only heard of problems with the
public domain in other jurisdictions (Germany?), not in the US.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Huh? I've never heard of this. I've only heard of problems with the
> public domain in other jurisdictions (Germany?), not in the US.
In pre-BCIA (1989) US law, copyright was surrendered by deliberately
publishing without a copyright notice. This was
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > Huh? I've never heard of this. I've only heard of problems with the
> > public domain in other jurisdictions (Germany?), not in the US.
>
> In pre-BCIA (1989) US law, copyright was surrender
d
> may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the
> applicable laws of intestate succession.
>
> That's effectively what is being done (or at least, what's being
> attempted) in the cases where you state "This work is placed into the
> public
On 30-Jan-99, 19:52 (GMT), Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought I saw a conversation somewhere that said saying a license "is
> in the public domain" isn't good enough. What is Debian's position on
> this WRT the DFSG?
I've always underst
Darren Benham writes:
> I thought I saw a conversation somewhere that said saying a license "is
> in the public domain" isn't good enough.
I think that a court would interpret "I place this work in the public
domain" as "I grant everyone everywhere unlimite
Steve Greenland writes:
> I've always understood that placing a (formerly/potentially) copyrighted
> work "in the public domain" is a statement by the author that they are
> giving up all copyright rights (if that's the correct phrase),
There are some copyright &qu
On Saturday 30 January 1999, at 21 h 20, the keyboard of Steve Greenland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've always understood that placing a (formerly/potentially) copyrighted
> work "in the public domain" is a statement by the author that they are
> giving up all c
It's probably a 'no rights reserved', which is basically the same as
public domain.
On 8/7/06, Miriam Ruiz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
How can I handle something like this?
> > I just wanted to know under which license is it released,
> > because I cannot
.
> > Pang 1.20 has no licence. It's totally free to use, and the
> > source code are available to anyone who want to begin coding
> > a game for example.
>
> May I understand that as the code being in the public domain?
I would be very careful.
Upstream seem to be a bit co
On 8/9/06, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
authors, but please note that some people have doubts about the legal
possibility to dedicate a work to the public domain under the Berne
Convention (that is to say, it's not even clear whether it's at all
possible to release
Hi again,
Upstream has agreed to add a license file to the tgz archive:
"""
This program is totally free and public domain. Do what you want to do with
the source code. If you want, just give me some credits (Michel Louvet) if you
port the game on another platform or use part of t
m is totally free and public domain. Do what you want to do with
the source code. If you want, just give me some credits (Michel Louvet) if
you
port the game on another platform or use part of the source code.
WARNING : The graphics and sound of the games are copyrighted material.
There
are in .
Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here
might have any ideas for improving the wording of the following license
header:
#!bin/bash
#
# Let this be known to all concerned: It is the specific inte
> This is the Module Development Kit for GOCR, created by Bruno Barberi Gnecco.
> This Module Development Kit is under Public Domain.
>
> It's the skeleton with all the tools needed to compile your code into a
> module,
> that can be opened later by GOCR. It includes all s
I was looking at some fonts recently, and I was wondering if I could
package them for Debian.
The website (http://moorstation.org/typoasis/designers/moye/index.htm)
says "A couple of Stephen Moye's Public Domain fonts", but isn't put up
by him.
One font (Trooklern) has o
http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain
http://opensource.org/faq#cc0
Public domain is not a license, its meaning depends
on the country you're in. What if that country applies
laws that violate DFSG ?
Please enlighten me.
Jérémy.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal
I am currently packaging the setcolortemperature program (sct) and I
have two licensing questions.
Firstly, the license of sct consists of one line:
/* public domain, do as you wish
Is this enough to consider this code to be in the public domain? I
maintain this code as upstream but did not
I have seen quite a few people who want to licence their software as though
it is in the public domain. they are often told to go with a bsd or x11
licence. They usually say they don't even whant the restrition of forcing
people to include the notice.
The reasoning for the use of the c
Hello,
I run Debian and I recently wrote a small Python program. However,
while I do maintain it, I have placed it in the public domain. I read
the Debian policy manual. After asking for more information about
licensing issues and public domain packages on the IRC channel, I was
told alternately
ay make it rather
>> unclear as to whose intent is being expressed, but I think that would be
>> rather moot anyway in the event of any dispute. I now cut the ribbon
>> opening this to the free-for-all of opinions...
>>
>
> What about:
>
> The author(s) of this scr
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:01:51 +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> On 9/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Le Monday 25 September 2006, à 16:21:24, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>> > What about:
>> >
>> > The author(s) of this script
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:43:22 -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> PS-Please fix your mutt and/or terminal config, as the subject line should
> read:
> public domain, take ∞
> not:
> public domain, take ?$B!g
Never mind, as it appears that UTF-8 interoperability between the Debian
ma
Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
> Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
> bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here
> might have any ideas for improving the wording of the following license
> header:
>
> #!bin/bash
> #
> # Let this be know
Hi Gang,
I'm planning to package Norm Walsh's (aka Mr. DocBook) java catalog
classes he wrote while working at Arbortext. The license simply says
it's public domain (see below).
Don't we need something that explicitly says we can redistribute this
software?
At least that
ishing house
"Russky Yazyk", publishing house "Russky Yazyk" has copyrights on
editions of Mueller dictionary published after 1961 only. Thus the
content of Mueller dictionary published before 1961 is in public
domain. S.Starostin, as the author of the first electronic version
of Mu
Any fonts that have "public domain" or something to that effect in their
copyright field can be distributed by Debian with no problems. Note that
"freeware" typically isn't good enough for Debian, since it doesn't give
permission to distribute modified copies. When t
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 11:35:19AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> Any fonts that have "public domain" or something to that effect in their
> copyright field can be distributed by Debian with no problems. Note that
> "freeware" typically isn't good enough
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 7. I am releasing these typefaces as freeware. That's right:
> You don't have to pay me. I am hoping, not in vain, I trust, that
> you have a conscience and will not use or appropriate these typefaces
> to your use without giving some credit where it is due.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 04:53:37PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> It sounds like the intention is an X11-style licence (BSD without
> advertising clause), but I know Debian usually insists on explicit
> permission to distribute modified versions for it to count as free.
> This is to prevent a
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Silly, philosophical point: if the author is dead, then there is a
> > greatly reduced risk of the author coming back and "clarifying" the
> > licence, so presumably you can interpret the licence more broadly in
> > that case.
>
> Of course, you've got the p
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 09:16:12AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> A spouse might have some kind of special authority, but a random
> descendent can't claim to have a more authoritative knowledge of the
> author's intentions than anyone else in the world, so there's no
> reason anyone should t
Please excuse the thread necromancy. Hopefully it's better to
demonstrate that I've searched the archives than not :-)
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [regarding an attempt to formulate a generally-applicable copyright
> declaration achieving the effect of p
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For works that are not a "script", or that have copyright holders
> who are not an "author", would this be a further improvement:
>
>The copyright holder of this work hereby grants irrevocable
>permission to any party
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For works that are not a “script”, or that have copyright holders
> who are not an “author”, would this be a further improvement:
>
> The copyright holder of this work hereby grants irrevocable
> permission to any party who may have access to it to
Can I as a German use the following Public Domain-declaration-text,
if I want the result to be dfsg-free?
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
// To the extent possible under law, X
// has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work.
Is this wording valid to be considered as Public Domain?
Thanks
--
José Carlos García Sogo
js...@debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ
Hi all,
I am working on the package for "Java Components for Mathematics"
(#667923). Some files are distributed with a clear public domain type
license:
This source code file, and compiled classes derived from it, can
be used and distributed without restriction, including for comme
Jérémy.
> Public domain is not a license, its meaning depends
> on the country you're in. What if that country applies
> laws that violate DFSG ?
>
> Please enlighten me.
Why? Does this affect any software that you're packaging?
Short answer: any software in that cou
On 31/01/2013 19:45, MJ Ray wrote:
> Jérémy.
>> Public domain is not a license, its meaning depends
>> on the country you're in. What if that country applies
>> laws that violate DFSG ?
>>
>> Please enlighten me.
>
> Why? Does this affect any softw
Jérémy Lal writes:
> Will you still be uploading to main, if one day it becomes illegal
> in your own country ?
Are you taking a poll? Or is there particular interest in MJ Ray's
answer?
What is the actual issue you're addressing with starting this thread?
--
\ “Think for yourselves and
actual issue you're addressing with starting this thread?
My issue is that i don't understand how public domain is DFSG, and the
consequence is that i cannot handle it properly in debian packages.
For example, reading [0]:
When the License field in a paragraph has the short name public-d
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> My issue is that i don't understand how public domain is DFSG,
If a work can actually be placed into the public domain, then that
usually means that it has no copyright, and therefore automatically
satisfies the DFSG so long as there is sou
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 04:25:21PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2013, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> > My issue is that i don't understand how public domain is DFSG,
>
> If a work can actually be placed into the public domain, then that
> usually means that it has no c
On 01/02/2013 01:25, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2013, Jérémy Lal wrote:
>> My issue is that i don't understand how public domain is DFSG,
>
> If a work can actually be placed into the public domain
Does this mean there are cases where the work cannot actually
be pl
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 02:04:26AM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> On 01/02/2013 01:25, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> >> My issue is that i don't understand how public domain is DFSG,
> > If a work can actually be placed into the pu
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 02:04:26AM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
> To be practical, are these files all right to be listed
> as 'public-domain' in debian/copyright :
>
> * without copyright notice
Not public domain. Copyrighted without license. If the author hasn't stated
* Steve Langasek [130201 02:24]:
> > Does this mean there are cases where the work cannot actually
> > be placed into the public domain ?
>
> In *most* jurisdictions, it appears to not be possible for a copyright
> holder to release their work into the public domain. That&#x
"Bernhard R. Link"
> (So I'd be suprised if any jurisdiction would translate a
> "I hereby place this work in the public domain" to anything but
> either making it public domain where possible or to a full permissive
> license).
Sadly, "in the public do
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 07:56 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> In addition, I'd like to note that's what CC0 is for, really. It has
> some neat fall-back clauses that trigger in the event a jurisdiction
> doesn't allow for public domain works as such, and also releases
&g
Jérémy Lal writes:
> Public domain is not a license, its meaning depends
> on the country you're in. What if that country applies
> laws that violate DFSG ?
I think you have to distinguish between two cases.
1.) Someone releases some code that is accompanied with a statement
Jacob Adams writes ("sct public domain"):
> Firstly, the license of sct consists of one line:
> /* public domain, do as you wish
Seems like a clear enough intent to dedicate to the public domain,
along with a permission to deal freely. So yes.
> Secondly, sct.c c
On 06/24/2016 04:00 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jacob Adams writes ("sct public domain"):
>> Firstly, the license of sct consists of one line:
>> /* public domain, do as you wish
>
> Seems like a clear enough intent to dedicate to the public domain,
> along with a
Jacob Adams writes ("Re: sct public domain"):
> On 06/24/2016 04:00 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Jacob Adams writes ("sct public domain"):
> >> Firstly, the license of sct consists of one line:
> >> /* public domain, do as you wish
> >
> >
Ian Jackson writes:
> Jacob Adams writes ("Re: sct public domain"):
> > Ok that makes sense. Wasn't sure if public domain was more
> > complicated but clearly not.
>
> "Public domain" is very complicated. It means different things in
> different
ed that information years later.
>
Ok. Got permission from Ingo to use his response in the copyright file
and the relevant portion now looks like this:
Files: sct.c
Copyright: 2016 Ted Unangst
whitepoints data copyright 2013 Ingo Thies
License: public-domain-sct and public-
;s good enough for Debian it's
good enough for pretty much everybody. Plus, I'm hoping to be able to
produce a Debian package containing this stuff eventually for use in
emulators. Back then people were really slack about licensing. Typically
you'll see software contributed to a 'p
Dear knowledge source,
As can be seen in #294559 I hope to become a debian developer. In the
same bug report one can see that the package I'd like to start with is
netbiff.
According to it's web page the license is:
"
License
All code contained in netbiff is released into th
As long as whoever uses this license understands they are not, in fact,
putting it in the public domain (copyright is retained)... and that this is
not, in fact, a license (waver of implied warranty is a contractual
provision)... and that the license is not irrevocable (after 35 years the
nce their software as
> though it is in the public domain. they are often told to go with a
> bsd or x11 licence. They usually say they don't even whant the
> restrition of forcing people to include the notice.
The MIT license is a fairly standard way to license things in a manner
as cl
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:53:34PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> First of, please use your real name when discussing things upon this
> list. Anonymity makes it rather difficult for others to follow your
> arguments, and interferes with the primary mission of debian-legal.
I usually just ignore an
Don Armstrong wrote:
> First of, please use your real name when discussing things upon this
> list. Anonymity makes it rather difficult for others to follow your
> arguments, and interferes with the primary mission of debian-legal.
I'd say to at least use a reasonably unique pseudonym if you wish
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:53:34PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> > > included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software].
> >
> > The part above is almost a no-op, and a goo
Anonymous said on Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 01:34:42PM -0400,:
> well understood. Therefore in an attempt to satify all parties I
> propose the following licence for use in those types of situations.
> The licence I propose consists of the MIT licence below, excluding
> the part in the quare bra
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:39:12PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > telling me that I can freely distribute the part that is Lua has no
> > value, since I can't actually do so (it's tucked away inside a
> > binary; if I want Lua, I'll go download the sourc
ourage free use
> of code, and it's understandable that people with this philosophy don't
> want to force people to include a useless license block, either.
These two statements are at odds with each other. I think it's confusing
and misleading to claim otherwise.
Fundamentally, the
dditional restrictions), and
knowledge that they can do so. These aren't goals of permissive licenses,
and that's not a bug.
> Fundamentally, the goal of public domain is to allow arbtrary non-free
> use of the material. And the same basic goal holds for near public-
> domain l
for a licence that has for
all intents and purposes no restrictions. a public domain licence. I was
just offering such a licence.
If you don't belive me that may people have requested such a licence look up
these message ids:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:33:43PM -0400, Anonymous wrote:
> Perhaps I was not clear that I do not intend to use this licence. I have
> noted that there have been at least ten requests for a licence that has for
> all intents and purposes no restrictions. a public domain licence. I wa
license for which users can say "Oh, the PD license"
>and know what it means (as we do now for the BSD, MIT, and GPL
>licenses)
> - a license so short that one can look at it and know what it means
>(e.g., "X is dedicated to the public domain", &quo
ok at it and know what it means
> >(e.g., "X is dedicated to the public domain", "X may be
> >redistributed in any form without restriction").
> >
> >The consensus I seem to read from debian-legal is that the second type
> >can't exist,
astronut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am probably wrong here, since I joined the list in the middle of the
> discussion, but can't you just put a notice at the top of the code like
> this?
>
> /* This code was written by and is hereby released into the
> public do
written by and is hereby released into the
> > public domain */
>
> There are supposedly jurisdictions where the concept of public domain
> does not exist, and such a statement would have no meaning.
The Netherlands is one. Well, we do have a public domain, but it
only contains works
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 07:57:47PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> What's "the public domain" in the context of UK / European law?
I don't know, as I am neither a lawyer nor a European. However, I assume
there is some concept of a work which has passed out of copyright (
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:24:51PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> The Netherlands is one. Well, we do have a public domain, but it
> only contains works that by law have no copyright and works whose
> copyright has expired.
So what's wrong with a license like:
You may do anyt
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:24:51PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> But would ever bring a lawsuit asserting copyright infringement?
His successors might (perhaps especially if they happen to be eg. native
to such a jurisdiction themselves).
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
On 20050606T165853-0400, Jeff King wrote:
> So what's wrong with a license like:
> You may do anything with this work that you would with a work in the
> public domain.
I have occasionally used the following notice:
Written by Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho. You may treat this
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:46:24PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 10:24:51PM +0200, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > But would ever bring a lawsuit asserting copyright infringement?
>
> His successors might (perhaps especially if they happen to be eg. native
> to such a jurisdi
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:58:53PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > _Probably_ a Dutch judge would treat the above statement as a
> > license that means "do whatever you want", since he's supposed to
> > reconstruct the intention of the author from such a vague statement.
> > And "do whatever you want"
the author cannot be
dooped into doing something foolish for a short-term benefit.
Of course, this means that it is practically impossible to put something into
the public domain prior to the expiration of the copyright. You really can't
even wait 35 years after you release the software
On 6/5/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 07:08:23PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Fundamentally, the goal of public domain is to allow arbtrary non-free
> > use of the material. And the same basic goal holds for near public-
> > do
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:36:27PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> To resolve this sad and not uncommon story, Congress granted the copyright
> holders an inalienable termination right which allows the author to revoke a
In other words, "for their own good", Congress removed people's right to
licen
ch as people honestly wanting to give their creation
> to the world, for free, guaranteeing that the work will always remain
> under those terms.
Yes... because SO many works are released directly into the Public Domain...
foolish Congress, protecting the rights of the many over the obscur
t; > part of "everywhere"). Permissive licenses are close to public domain,
> > and reasons for using the two are similar.
>
> Change "everywhere" to "allowed for every person, regardless of
> the restrictions they then impose" and I'll agree with you.
&g
cted, it backfires as soon as an unexpected
> > situation arises--such as people honestly wanting to give their creation
> > to the world, for free, guaranteeing that the work will always remain
> > under those terms.
>
> Yes... because SO many works are released dire
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:36:27PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> > > Yes, it is the intention. How about a license like:
> > > Do whatever you want.
> > > The only argument I have heard against this is that you (or your heirs)
> > > may later say "Oh, but I didn't really mean *anything*." Which s
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 04:48:57PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Yes... because SO many works are released directly into the Public
> Domain...
I have been on this list for about 6 weeks, and I have seen no less than
three active threads regarding public domain licenses. A minority,
p
1 - 100 of 283 matches
Mail list logo
