On 04/12/14 17:57, Joe Kua wrote:
I wish to release my software in public domain including giving
explicit patent grants. Is Public Domain Customized a good license to
choose ?
There is no such thing as a public domain licence. The documents are
combinations of an attempt to abandon
On 04/12/14 17:57, Joe Kua wrote:
> I wish to release my software in public domain including giving
> explicit patent grants. Is Public Domain Customized a good license to
> choose ?
"NOTE 1: None of these license texts should be used as a license until
further notice! These text
Hi,
I wish to release my software in public domain including giving
explicit patent grants. Is Public Domain Customized a good license to
choose ?
https://github.com/asaunders/public-domain-customized
https://github.com/asaunders/public-domain-customized/blob/master/Custom%20Dedication:%20Open
Richard Fontana writes:
>> 1) Have licenses out in the world that are OSD-compliant, and that
>> we informally agree are "open source", but that we don't certify.
>> This will cause growing divergence between "what is open source"
>> and "what the OSI has approved". That would be very
Simon Phipps scripsit:
> We did not decide against CC0. The discussion was certainly at a low point
> when Creative Commons withdrew it from the approval process, but that's
> what happened, not an OSI denial. Had they persisted, I believe OSI would
> have needed to face the issue of how licenses
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 9:13 PM, John Cowan wrote:
>
>
> I continue to think that our CC0 decision was wrong insofar as it can
> be read as saying that the CC0 license is not an open-source (as opposed
> to OSI Certified) license. There may be reasons not to certify it,
> but not to deny that it i
Henrik Ingo scripsit:
> Is the US governments exclusion of patents that explicit?
The only thing that makes the U.S. Government different from any other
actor in IP law is that it cannot (and therefore its employees acting in
the scope of their employment cannot) acquire copyright on any works i
n. The
>> U.S. government is going to keep releasing what is (obviously) open
>> source software into the public domain; CC0 is also becoming more
>> popular in non-software works and will inevitably make inroads into
>> software too.
>
> I'm going to out myself here a
Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org):
[Appreciating and agreeing with what you say, FWIW, but I have one thing
to add.]
> In the end, certification is just a convenience to the users: it says
> that a group of fairly knowledgeable people are willing to stand behind
> the cliam that each ce
Karl Fogel scripsit:
> After all, the *definition* of "open source" is supposed to be just
> "whatever complies with the OSD". And our certification process is
> also "Does this comply with the OSD?"... So the two shouldn't diverge;
> to the extent that they do, we have a problem.
Actually, tha
end
that just because a license was never submitted for OSI approval, it
must fail the OSD. An interesting example someone brought up some time
ago is that the OSI apparently never certified GPLv1, not surprisingly
since it's seen little (explicit) use since 1991, though usage is not
zero.
it for new code unless you have no choice" is, of course, a complicated
political question. We don't need to resolve it in this thread...
...but I think we do need to come to some sort of solution soon. The
U.S. government is going to keep releasing what is (obviously) open
source soft
. That said, it seems most
will agree that the public domain copyright is for all intents and
purposes open source. I suppose this is comparable to how artistic
license is open source but preferably you'd use a better license.
henrik
--
henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354
Henrik Ingo scripsit:
> The analoguous explanation for why cc0 didn't qualify is that it
> explicitly said "you get rights a and b but not c", with c a necessary
> right to copy and use the software. It should be obvious that - even
> if you'd disagree wrt patents - at least for some values of c t
The analoguous explanation for why cc0 didn't qualify is that it explicitly
said "you get rights a and b but not c", with c a necessary right to copy
and use the software. It should be obvious that - even if you'd disagree
wrt patents - at least for some values of c that is clearly not open source.
Richard Fontana scripsit:
> When the MXM license was considered, some people pointed to OSD #7
> as suggesting that a sufficiently narrowly-drawn patent license grant
> in a license would not be Open Source. This was the problem I raised
> when CC0 was submitted. It was the inconsistency. It depen
On Sat, 03 May 2014 14:00:53 -0500
Karl Fogel wrote:
> Richard Fontana writes:
> >Also with statutory public domain works you have the same old MXM/CC0
> >inconsistency problem in a different form. Consider the case of
> >public domain source code created by a U
On Sat, 3 May 2014 22:07:19 +0300
Henrik Ingo wrote:
> Does the US government grant itself patents,
Yes.
> and if so, what does it
> do with those patents?
Many are licensed to the private sector for revenue.
- RF
___
License-discuss mailing l
Henrik Ingo scripsit:
> Does the US government grant itself patents, and if so, what does it do
> with those patents?
In the case of 6630507, they apply criminal sanctions to people who
seek to make use of the patented technology. Google for [patent 6630507].
--
John Cowan http://www.
Karl Fogel scripsit:
> The patent issue would apply just as much if it were MIT- or
> BSD-licensed, though, and we'd call it "open source" then, right?
Indeed. We may not be in the business of approving licenses without
patent grants any more, but nobody can say that licenses that don't
grant pa
ead on GitHub gets (needlessly?) complicated. It's about a
> > public-domain software work put out by the U.S. government, and
> > there's no clarity on whether calling it "open source" and citing the
> > OSI's definition of the term would be appropriate:
> &
Richard Fontana writes:
>This work's authors seem to explicitly say that they are dedicating it
>to the public domain, not merely (or explicitly at all, as far as
>I can see here) relying on the notion of statutory public domain for
>US government works. I'd argue those are
On Fri, 02 May 2014 14:55:55 -0500
Karl Fogel wrote:
> This thread on GitHub gets (needlessly?) complicated. It's about a
> public-domain software work put out by the U.S. government, and
> there's no clarity on whether calling it "open source" and citing the
&
Hello Karl,
On 02-05-14 14:55, Karl Fogel wrote:
This thread on GitHub gets (needlessly?) complicated. It's about a
public-domain software work put out by the U.S. government, and there's
no clarity on whether calling it "open source" and citing the OSI's
defini
This thread on GitHub gets (needlessly?) complicated. It's about a
public-domain software work put out by the U.S. government, and there's
no clarity on whether calling it "open source" and citing the OSI's
definition of the term would be appropriate:
https://githu
johann Sorel writes:
>I am not in the usa but in Europe, public domain is not yet really
>legal' like you said.
>Yet there are so much initiatives using one of CCO/PD/BOLA/WTFPL that
>public domain is a 'De Facto'. The only people who have problems with
>it are gov
Quoting David Woolley (for...@david-woolley.me.uk):
> There are no international conventions on public domain, so a public
> domain declaration in one country may not have any effect in
> another, whereas a copyright one would.
[...]
> You would be much better advised to use a s
I am not in the usa but in Europe, public domain is not yet really 'legal' like
you said.
Yet there are so much initiatives using one of CCO/PD/BOLA/WTFPL that
public domain is a 'De Facto'. The only people who have problems with it are
governments and lawyer
they wi
Hello,
I'm searching for the best course of action to develop a project in 'public
domain'.
I've read the FAQ and different threads on PD and CC0 in the archive. Basicaly
the OSI do not recommand using PD/CCO. So ... I don't care, since it's the
right choice fo
johann Sorel wrote:
I'm searching for the best course of action to develop a project in 'public
domain'.
I've read the FAQ and different threads on PD and CC0 in the archive. Basicaly
the OSI do not recommand using PD/CCO. So ... I don't care, since it's the
Hello,
I'm searching for the best course of action to develop a project in 'public
domain'.
I've read the FAQ and different threads on PD and CC0 in the archive. Basicaly
the OSI do not recommand using PD/CCO. So ... I don't care, since it's the
right choice for m
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Russ Nelson wrote:
>> I hear a lot of whistling past the graveyard here. As people point out,
>> it's never happened yet, and so it never will happen. Not a cause for
>> concern; move along, nothing to see here.
>
> Russ, among the things I
Lawrence Rosen writes:
> If you want to worry about copyright law, consider 17 USC 203. [1] Tell me
> what you experience as you drive over that bridge
I'll tell you in 35 years.
--
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. |
iscuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public
domain?
John Cowan writes:
> Russ Nelson scripsit:
>
> > And yet we know that bridges collapse. Is it reasonable to take steps
> > against bridges collapsing? We (mostly) don
John Cowan writes:
> Russ Nelson scripsit:
>
> > And yet we know that bridges collapse. Is it reasonable to take steps
> > against bridges collapsing? We (mostly) don't build bridges out of
> > wood (software from moral rights countries), but instead out of steel
> > and concrete (countries
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> [This email best viewed in HTML format]
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> ** **
>
> It would be difficult for Linus Torvalds to complain about porn when he
> intentionally released an operating system that is so ideally suited for
> the del
Russ Nelson scripsit:
> And yet we know that bridges collapse. Is it reasonable to take steps
> against bridges collapsing? We (mostly) don't build bridges out of
> wood (software from moral rights countries), but instead out of steel
> and concrete (countries where people cannot retroactively cha
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> And yet we know that bridges collapse. Is it reasonable to take steps
> against bridges collapsing? We (mostly) don't build bridges out of
> wood (software from moral rights countries), but instead out of steel
> and concrete (countries where
gt; To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public
> domain?
>
> Larry, have you ever been driving over a bridge that collapsed?
> -russ
>
> Lawrence Rosen writes:
> > Russ, have you ever experi
To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public
domain?
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Lawrence Rosen <
<mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Russ Nelson asked:
>> Larr
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Russ Nelson asked:
>> Larry, have you ever been driving over a bridge that collapsed?
>
> Not that I can recall. :-) Out of fear of that very result, though, I
> support increased infrastructure spending by our government.
>
> But I don't st
u?
Best,
/Larry
-Original Message-
From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 10:43 PM
To: license-discuss@opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public
domain?
Larry, have you ever been driving over a bri
Larry, have you ever been driving over a bridge that collapsed?
-russ
Lawrence Rosen writes:
> Russ, have you ever experienced that inferiority in actual open source
> software?
>
> /Larry (from my tablet and brief)
>
> Russ Nelson wrote:
>
> >Oleksandr Gavenko writes:
> > >
On Friday 17 August 2012 06:51, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> I believe Finland has the concept of Moral Rights.
As do Norway, and most if not all nordic countries.
> weird things like the right to forbid the use of my work for pornography
If you make use of that right in a license, then it is not a fre
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Johnny Solbu wrote:
>> On Friday 17 August 2012 02:15, Russ Nelson wrote:
>>> but it's clear that OSI
>>> Approved Open Source contributions from people who live in countries
>>> that claim Moral Rights is infe
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Johnny Solbu wrote:
> On Friday 17 August 2012 02:15, Russ Nelson wrote:
>> but it's clear that OSI
>> Approved Open Source contributions from people who live in countries
>> that claim Moral Rights is inferior to people who live in countries
>> which don't.
>
> Sa
On Friday 17 August 2012 02:15, Russ Nelson wrote:
> but it's clear that OSI
> Approved Open Source contributions from people who live in countries
> that claim Moral Rights is inferior to people who live in countries
> which don't.
Says who?
And why?
--
Johnny A. Solbu
web site, http://www.so
Russ, have you ever experienced that inferiority in actual open source
software?
/Larry (from my tablet and brief)
Russ Nelson wrote:
>Oleksandr Gavenko writes:
> > Moral Rights:
>
>Only some countries claim Moral Rights. And as you point out, this is
>very problemmatic for Open Source
Oleksandr Gavenko writes:
> Moral Rights:
Only some countries claim Moral Rights. And as you point out, this is
very problemmatic for Open Source Software. We have traditionally held
that a license is a license is a license, but it's clear that OSI
Approved Open Source contributions from pe
Richard Fontana writes:
> There are strange things I've seen in my time, like "public domain for
> noncommercial purposes". We would treat that as
> nonfree/non-open-source.
I've seen "copyrighted public domain software".
--
--my blog is athttp://b
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.
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
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
I would assume that if you release anonymously and
explicitly disclaim copyright, that the code can be effectively public
domain. I am not aware of any jurisdiction that forbids anonymous
publication, especially when the author seeks to remain anonymous.
I don't see how copyright can be enf
is honor or reputation.
Ever with any possible licence agreement that fully grand you permission
unlimitedly modify copyrighted work original author still can limit some
changes to his work if you fall under the jurisdiction of the countries which
sing "Berne Convention".
Same applied to th
question.
This is what I tried to get across on my Web page, basically (along with
pointing out that a simple permissive licence has more-deterministic
effects, and also clarifying that copyright abandonment and public
domain are distinct concepts).
> P.S. C A L L A W A Y. Like the golf club
laims the opposite, and cites actual court decisions as
>evidence.
>
>Is D. J. Bernstein out of his depth here, or does he have a valid point?
I realize this thread has already developed, but FWIW:
http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain
___
Lice
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, h
r the erstwhile
> copyright owner actually succeeded in eradicating legal title to his/her
> copyright property (what is properly meant by 'public domain'),
Yes. I agree with you that 'public domain' is a misnomer (but no more
than, say, the use of 'proprietary&#x
pronouncements on points of legal theory. ;->
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.
T
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
t is properly meant by 'public domain'), but
rather whether Red Hat, Inc. will be reasonably protected against
infringement claims by either the owner's success or by estoppel.
Since the policy conclusion you and Tom Calloway spoke of, any number of
people have told me 'You mus
xplicitly and clearly abandoning their copyright on a work (as in
> > CC-0, for example), treating that work in good faith as being in the
> > public domain presented a very minimal amount of risk, especially since
> > such a declaration, were it to go to trial, would likely limit
e), treating that work in good faith as being in the
> public domain presented a very minimal amount of risk, especially since
> such a declaration, were it to go to trial, would likely limit the
> effectiveness of the copyright "holder" suing for infringement.
CC0 (http://creati
eone
is explicitly and clearly abandoning their copyright on a work (as in
CC-0, for example), treating that work in good faith as being in the
public domain presented a very minimal amount of risk, especially since
such a declaration, were it to go to trial, would likely limit the
effectiveness o
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
Subject: [License-discuss] New OSI FAQ items posted about Public Domain
>> and CC0.
>>
>> (This seems appropriate for both license-discuss@ and license-review@,
>> so
>> I'm posting it in both places.)
>>
>> I've been seeing an increasing number
Quoting Karl Fogel (kfo...@red-bean.com):
> Larry, thanks so much for saying so. So far we've got +1s from you and
> from Josh Berkus... I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop! :-)
FWIW, nothing but thanks from these quarters: You've achieved clarity and
covered essential points on a complex to
Karl Fogel writes:
> "Lawrence Rosen" writes:
> >Karl, those are excellent FAQ entries! They summarize quite well the
> >non-consensus reached on our lists. Good work! /Larry
>
> Larry, thanks so much for saying so. So far we've got +1s from you and
> from Josh Berkus... I'm waiting for t
ther shoe to drop! :-)
-K
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Karl Fogel [mailto:kfo...@red-bean.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 5:54 PM
>> To: license-discuss@opensource.org; license-rev...@opensource.org
>> Subject: [License-discuss] New OSI FAQ items p
Message-
> From: Karl Fogel [mailto:kfo...@red-bean.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 5:54 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org; license-rev...@opensource.org
> Subject: [License-discuss] New OSI FAQ items posted about Public Domain
> and CC0.
>
> (This seems appropriate f
(This seems appropriate for both license-discuss@ and license-review@, so
I'm posting it in both places.)
I've been seeing an increasing number of inquiries about the public
domain and open source, and about CC0 and open source. A few of those
inquiries have come here, but I'm al
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
> P.S. If a US citizen can take NASA's US-PD software and license it
> to Australians, can a US citizen can take NASA's US-PD software
> and release it in Australian public domain?
I missed this before. No. The software is not PD in Aust
Alex Rousskov scripsit:
> Or is the legal world so badly broken that it is practically
> impossible to reliably place software in public domain?
Pretty much. Dedications to the public domain have been rare to
nonexistent in the past, and nobody is quite sure whether they can
actua
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> Alex Rousskov said on Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 02:26:11PM -0700,:
>
>
>
> >The Authors place this Software is in Public Domain.
> >
> >
> >If the above Public Domain dedication is deemed invalid
> &
Alex Rousskov said on Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 02:26:11PM -0700,:
> The Authors place this Software is in Public Domain.
>
>
> If the above Public Domain dedication is deemed invalid
> under any theory of law, current or future, this Software
>
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
> > > If NASA has the ability to apply a license in a foreign country to a
> > > works that is in the public domain in the USA, then does not any other US
> > > citizen have the ability to apply a license as well? If these other US
>
ike other forms of "work for hire", the employer (The United States
Government) would be the copyright holder if there was copyright. In this
case the employer has released the works into the public domain via
legislation.
Like other forms of "work for hire" the employees do not
I use Creative Commons public domain dedication[1] for some of the
software I author. I am concerned that some people believe that it is
impossible to permanently and/or reliably place software in public
domain in some countries. It appears that while Creative Commons
public domain dedication
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
> If NASA has the ability to apply a license in a foreign country to a
> works that is in the public domain in the USA, then does not any other US
> citizen have the ability to apply a license as well? If these other US
> citizens do not, then doe
I do not have an answer to the specific question, but I suspect the answer
may reside in a treaty or an international agreement that is not a treaty.
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), for instance, allows works in the
public domain in the U.S. to be scooped out of the public domain
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> I don't think it is legal in the USA to apply your own license to
> a public domain work. How can you license something to which you
> do not have a copyright?
This is just some of the odd things we end up if we play the word game
Russell McOrmond scripsit:
> It appears that with US government created works that every US
> citizen has the right to apply licenses to the work,
Not so. See my other posting.
> Given that term expiry is not the only way for a work to
> enter the public domain, and term e
rne Convention to
show that copyright in "other" Berne countries is independent from
existence of copyright in the "home" country, as long as the work
qualifies as protected matter under the BC. Apparently under US
law works by the NASA may be public domain by law]
> > I
so Australians.
>
> Interesting ... so what happens if an American citizen takes public
> domain US Government software into Australia and starts redistributing
> it there? But I suppose that's a problem that the NOSA will fix, so
> at least for this discussion it's a moot point.
Note: IANAL, I just hang around with and enjoy conversations with lawyers
and law students.
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, daniel wallace wrote:
> There are two copyright authors in a derivative work,
> the "preexisting" authorizing author and "modifying" author.
> In a "bare" license or unilateral permiss
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, daniel wallace wrote:
> Anyone who could show they had invested time and effort in reliance on
> promised copyright permissions could claim promissory estoppel to
> continue developing and expanding projects into the future.
I've been trying to wrap my head around this and
If the GPL is a "bare" license,then what binds the two
mutually disjoint permissions in a distributed
derivative work. How is distribution authorized?
There are two copyright authors in a derivative work,
the "preexisting" authorizing author and "modifying" author.
In a "bare" license or unilateral
12:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Public domain mistake?
>
>
>
> Under Utah law, the elements of promissory estoppel are:
>
> (1) The promisee acted with prudence and in reasonable
> reliance on a promise made by the promisor;
>
> (2) the prom
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> daniel wallace scripsit:
>
> > Under Utah law, the elements of promissory estoppel are:
> >
> > (1) The promisee acted with prudence and in reasonable
> >reliance on a promise made by the promisor;
> >
> > (2) the promisor knew that the promisee
ow* that you rely on my promises,
since I don't know you at all.
> If there exists a mistaken presumption of law (not material fact)
> which preempts or voids an open source license agreement and
> the source code has been widely distributed under that license,
> the copyrighted
Daniel,
Could you please clarify for a non-lawyer where you see the
"Public domain mistake" here (the Subject of your message)?
If my understanding is correct, you are saying that if a permissible
open source license agreement is not enforceable then the source code
is in pub
code permissions would exist in the public domain
for all practical purpose.
Anyone who could show they had invested time and effort in
reliance on promised copyright permissions could claim
promissory estoppel to continue developing and expanding projects
into the future.
RMS would be r
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, David A. Wheeler wrote:
>
> --- Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Quoting David A. Wheeler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > I'm not sure there's reasonable consensus on the legal effect of
> > declaring one's copyrighted
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> Does abandonment by one joint author constitute a dedication to the
> public domain, or does it merely convey all remaining interest to the
> remaining joint author(s) from whom a license may still be required?
I would say that your use of the word "j
Gregory Pomerantz scripsit:
> Abandonment divests title to the work from the author, and I have no reason to
> think title would vest in somebody else. Did you have something in mind?
Based on his earlier postings, he doesn't really believe in a res nullius.
--
John Cowan http://www.c
begin Rick Moen Lives Three Hours from Nowhere quotation:
> These attitudes are extremely common among programmers, outside the
> core open-source community: They typically announce no licence
> permissions, believing in error that thus releasing code makes it
> public domain. When
> _Some_ analogies with physical property are possible: If a ship is
> derelict at sea, someone else can successfully claim title by right of
> salvage. The original authors are deemed to have abandoned title, but
> the ship doesn't cease to become property.
> ...
> Does the first person to pull
Does abandonment by one joint author constitute a dedication to the
public domain, or does it merely convey all remaining interest to the
remaining joint author(s) from whom a license may still be required?
/Larry Rosen
> -Original Message-
> From: Gregory Pomerantz [mailto:
come into possession of a particular abandoned title, but
rather whether title continues to exist. The point is that, if title
_does_ persist, irrespective of who owns it, then the work clearly has
not become public domain.
_Some_ analogies with physical property are possible: If a ship is
dereli
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
