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 pretty much
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, thanks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject
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
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 of copyright has expired.
This varies with jurisdiction
you retain any right you don't explicitly
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
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.
The closest thing I've found so
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 retain any right you don't explicitly
grant... so you have
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 the public domain
released under the public domain, the
public's right to that release can't be revoked? Have I gotten that
entirely wrong?
I've never heard of this. Public domain works are free.
One theoretical problem with public domain software: not all jurisdictions,
as far as I vaguely understand, actually
; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi,
there is a discussion in the German Wikipedia whether the Debian Open
Use Logo http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Debian_logo.png may be
subjected to the GFDL. The German Wikipedia does not accept any content
not licensed as public domain or GFDL
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 01:04:19PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Not all jurisdictions recognize the ability of authors to put their
works into the public domain.
I don't believe this to be accurate.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 01:04:19PM -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Not all jurisdictions recognize the ability of authors to put their
works into the public domain.
I don't believe this to be accurate.
Accurate or not, I doubt the author would
On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 10:18:40AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Accurate or not, I doubt the author would sue anyone in one of those
places for using the code.
That doesn't matter. His heirs may.
--
Glenn Maynard
/LICENSE
The problem is that some files are in the public domain (put there by
the author), while some files aren't (articles relating to the python
module). The author distributes all of them in the same tar-ball.
The author has no interest in changing the packaging he currently has
(e.g
Not all jurisdictions recognize the ability of authors to put their
works into the public domain. Perhaps you could get him to release
the code under a very permissive license, such as the MIT/X11 license?
If that's not acceptable, a public-domain declaration is, I think,
good enough for Debian
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not all jurisdictions recognize the ability of authors to put their
works into the public domain. Perhaps you could get him to release
the code under a very permissive license, such as the MIT/X11 license?
Having just read the license -- much
On Feb 5, 2004, at 12:44, Magnus Therning wrote:
And the license can be found here:
http://www.gnosis.cx/download/gnosis/doc/LICENSE
Despite silly things like and in fact do anything you could do with
content of your own creation, I think it's fine to put the
public-domain stuff in main
And now I wonder if License: public domain in debian/copyright is
enough
for a DFSG free package.
Public domain is not a license; it is not copyrighted. The issue
is that the author needs to guarantee that he deliberately abandoned
his copyright, because otherwise he has copyright by default
Public domain. Help yourself.
Thanks,
bob
At 16:33+0100 Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Martin Wuertele wrote:
Hi,
I wonder what license your cvscommand for vim script is as I think of
packaging it for Debian.
TIA Martin
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - NO HTML MAILS
PLEASE
For texts which date *after* the advent of printing, variant editions
are quite rare, and there is really no such thing as a critical
text--every text is really pretty identical. (However, it is
occasionally done to update the punctuation, spelling [or worse, the
grammar] of an old text,
does not necessarily trump the
license for the individual works. You can make any use of public-domain
writings, even if the copy you're reading from is a copyrighted volume.
I can create derivative works from Homer's _Illiad_ even though the copy I'm
basing it on is in the Norton Anthology
that are in the public
domain. For ancient texts, it happens that a great many of the
Harvard Loeb editions, and the Oxford Classical Texts editions, are
out of copyright, for example.
Small differences may be introduced into the anthology, by accident
or deliberately, and these differences would be sufficient
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 possibility of
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 take
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 only the font file
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 the font and any files you
find
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
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 stuff needed by autoconf
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.
Should I mail
the Electronic Version of Mueller Dictionary (7 Edition)
on February 29, 2000. The number of State registration is
032030.
--
This should be in the copyright file, right? More worrysome to me,
though, is why is this in the public domain? Under Berne convention
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 Mueller dictionary, kindly allowed me to use his code one
of Mueller dictionary published before 1961 is in public
domain. S.Starostin, as the author of the first electronic version
of Mueller dictionary, kindly allowed me to use his code one for any
purpose. You can use my electronic version of Mueller dictionary
under GNU GPL.
The Russian Scientific
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's how I interpreted
Mark Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
See
To sum it up:
1) Is the license DFSG-free as it stands?
Non-copyrighted (public domain) material cannot have (and does not need) a
licence.
2) Can the author re-distribute his software under, e.g., the BSD license
now, despite having released it with the above license
KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.
What bothers me is the sentence Although no license from Sandia is needed
to copy and use this software, copying and using the software might
infringe the rights of others. The author himself doesn't see any
problems, as he has placed pchar in the public domain
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 rights that you cannot give up (though
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://benham.net/index.html
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 understood that placing a (formerly/potentially
201 - 239 of 239 matches
Mail list logo
