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 long time.
Seems reasonable to me. Correct me if I'm wrong (you're the professional), but I would imagine the relevant question for Red Hat, Inc. was not whether the erstwhile copyright owner actually succeeded in eradicating legal title to his/her copyright property (what 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 must be mistaken on http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html, because Red Hat Legal allowed Prasad J. Pandit to package ndjbdns for Fedora.' 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 legal theory. ;-> > However (modulo that "or patent" language :) CC0 approximates nicely > the way I think we should analyze the more typical kinds of simple > public domain dedications we encounter in FOSS code. Thank goodness, at least it's well written and with an eye to producing desired result via other means if the direct approach fails. -- Cheers, "Overheard a hipster say 'Quinoa is kind of 2011', Rick Moen so I lit his beard on fire." -- Kelly Oxford r...@linuxmafia.com McQ! (4x80) _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss