Based on http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 and similar
articles, I'd long believed that a declaration that you were
abandoning copyright was a meaningless farce.
Then by accident today I ran across http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html
which claims the opposite, and cites actual court decisions
On 08/14/2012 11:24 AM, Ben Tilly wrote:
> Based on http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 and similar
> articles, I'd long believed that a declaration that you were
> abandoning copyright was a meaningless farce.
>
> Then by accident today I ran across http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html
> which
On 08/14/2012 11:52 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> Fedora used to spend a lot of time stressing out over this question, but
> recently, after counsel with Red Hat Legal, we concluded that if someone
> is explicitly and clearly abandoning their copyright on a work (as in
> CC-0, for example), treating th
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:10:49PM -0400, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 11:52 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> > Fedora used to spend a lot of time stressing out over this question, but
> > recently, after counsel with Red Hat Legal, we concluded that if someone
> > is explicitly and clearly aba
Quoting Richard Fontana (rfont...@redhat.com):
> I believe I am the counsel Tom is referring to, though the Fedora
> policy conclusion Tom refers to was prepared by Tom. Nevertheless I
> would see it as Fedora adopting more or less the liberal and pragmatic
> view I have had on this subject for a
Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com):
> Based on http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 and similar
> articles, I'd long believed that a declaration that you were
> abandoning copyright was a meaningless farce.
>
> Then by accident today I ran across http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html
> which cl
On 08/14/2012 02:22 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> I've responded that of course I might be wrong, but not for non-sequitur
> reasons like that. It's funny how many people cannot seem to grasp that
> corporate counsel's job is to protect company legal interests, not make
> pronouncements on points of lega
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:22:05AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Richard Fontana (rfont...@redhat.com):
>
> > I believe I am the counsel Tom is referring to, though the Fedora
> > policy conclusion Tom refers to was prepared by Tom. Nevertheless I
> > would see it as Fedora adopting more or le
Quoting Richard Fontana (rfont...@redhat.com):
> Yes. I agree with you that 'public domain' is a misnomer (but no more
> than, say, the use of 'proprietary' to mean 'not free-as-in-freedom
> software').
FWIW, I feel the latter has domain-specific meaning, here; i.e., that
'proprietary' functions
Ben Tilly writes:
>Based on http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 and similar
>articles, I'd long believed that a declaration that you were
>abandoning copyright was a meaningless farce.
>
>Then by accident today I ran across http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html
>which claims the opposite, and cit
Quoting Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com):
> Indeed. If the question is: "Is this legally possible?", the answer
> might very well be "No", "Yes", or "Maybe", depending on the situation,
> the jurisdiction, and the case law at the time you ask the question.
This is what I tried to get across on
On 2012-08-14, Ben Tilly wrote:
> Based on http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 and similar
> articles, I'd long believed that a declaration that you were
> abandoning copyright was a meaningless farce.
>
> Then by accident today I ran across http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html
> which claims th
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 11:24 AM, Ben Tilly wrote:
>> Based on http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 and similar
>> articles, I'd long believed that a declaration that you were
>> abandoning copyright was a meaningless farce.
>>
>> Then by accident t
Chris Travers scripsit:
> I don't see how copyright can be enforced when it is both explicitly
> disclaimed and the link with the author is severed. There would be no
> way to enforce it, nobody to go after for implicit warranties, etc.
You could claim that it was illicitly published without you
On 08/14/2012 11:43 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> I don't see how copyright can be enforced when it is both explicitly
> disclaimed and the link with the author is severed. There would be no
> way to enforce it, nobody to go after for implicit warranties, etc.
> After all it would be like asking whe
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com):
> I would assume that if you release anonymously and explicitly disclaim
> copyright, that the code can be effectively public domain.
If you would trust the provenance of code like that, you're a braver man
than I am.
--
Cheers,
16 matches
Mail list logo
