Quoting Anthony DeRobertis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Why not do something like: > > <statement (maybe) releasing work to public domain> > > If the above is not legally possible, then (name[s]) grant(s) you > and any other party receiving this code a perpetual, irrevocable, > royalty-free license to [everything copyright law prohibits]. > > (name[s]) additionally grant(s) you a royalty-free... license > to do anything else that you would be allowed to do with a > work in the public domain. > > It is the intent of (name[s]) that this work be treated as if > the "public domain" statement above is valid. > > What would be wrong with that? Best case, it is public domain; worst > case, it is public domain in all but name.
I like it; it would probably work (my guess). The only thing wrong with it is there's no exclusion of warranties and damages, a la BSD or MIT/X I still can't for the life of me understand why anyone would _not_ want those on a work one is handing out for free, but to each his own. -- Cheers, "I used to be on the border of insanity. However, due Rick Moen to pressing political concerns, I recently had to invade." [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Kurt Montandon, in r.a.sf.w.r-j
