They probably have the same meaning, although it may depend on the subject of the sentence and what it is attached to. Example: “this page is in the public domain” attached to a file, or a program consisting of a number of different files. In that circumstance, what’s PD, and is anything not.
Also this: “This template file is in the Public Domain. You may do anything you want with this file.” That could be read as PD+backup license (like what CC0 does) so perhaps better in those jurisdictions that don’t recognize PD dedications. From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org <Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> On Behalf Of J Lovejoy Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 2:30 PM To: 'SPDX-legal' <Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> Subject: Re: public domain dedication variants in the wild (found in Fedora) On 5/24/23 3:18 PM, McCoy Smith wrote: I’m not sure you can easily find some sort of “these are the characteristics that make a public domain dedication effect” analysis, and it might be expensive to put together. I think CC looked into this when they created CC0 but their dedication is pretty wordy, probably to cover every possible jurisdiction. Just an idea, and perhaps not practical. well, what if it was kept as simply as equating things like: * This program is in the public domain. * This text is in the public domain. * This page is in the public domain. * This file is in the public domain * This code is public domain software. * This is in the public domain * This template file is in the Public Domain. You may do anything you want with this file. * This stylesheet has been placed in the public domain. * This code is public domain software. Would you say these have different meanings? J. From: J Lovejoy <mailto:opensou...@jilayne.com> <opensou...@jilayne.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 2:15 PM To: mc...@lexpan.law <mailto:mc...@lexpan.law> ; 'SPDX-legal' <mailto:Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> <Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> Subject: Re: public domain dedication variants in the wild (found in Fedora) On 5/9/23 12:34 PM, McCoy Smith wrote: FWIW, maybe this is an opportunity for SPDX to lead? Most of these look similar, but not the same. I’m guessing a lot of the similar ones would have the same legal effect, although the more dissimilar ones, maybe not (depending on where you are, and as we know some places don’t recognize PD). do you think there is some analysis we (SPDX-legal) could do to safely lump the similar ones /that have the same legal effect? From: Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org <mailto:Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> <mailto:Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> <Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> On Behalf Of J Lovejoy Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 8:34 PM To: 'SPDX-legal' <mailto:Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> <Spdx-legal@lists.spdx.org> Subject: public domain dedication variants in the wild (found in Fedora) Hi SPDX-legal Some time ago, I raised the issue of the possibility of finding a proliferation of "public domain "dedication" texts in the course of Fedora reviewing package license info to adopt SPDX ids. Please see https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/topic/93048752#3202 for the background Fedora has been "collecting" such texts here https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/blob/main/public-domain-text.txt and using a specific LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain as a sort of placeholder SPDX id. The idea being, no assessment of how many of these types of dedications exist has been collected in one place in order for the SPDX-legal community to assess. I estimate that Fedora has collected about 48 variations of public domain statements that are not specifically identified on the SPDX License List. I'm going to assume many of these packages also show up in other major distros. I'd like to raise the conversation as to: 1) Should each unique entry be added to the SPDX License List as a standalone entry (like normal, in that one SPDX license id represents a specific, identifiable license/set of text)? 2) Should SPDX consider a different approach by defining one SPDX id to represent any one of a collection of specifically identified and vetted texts? I'd love to hear your yes or no answer to these questions and why you answered as such :) Also see for background: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/#_updating_existing_packages_callaway_short_name_categories https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/update-existing-packages/#_public_domain We likely won't have time to discuss this on Thursday's call, but I wanted to start the discussion here and perhaps we can dedicate some time at an upcoming meeting. Thanks, Jilayne -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#3400): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/message/3400 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/98776908/21656 Group Owner: spdx-legal+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-legal/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
