Ben Finney wrote
Yes. If anything, the length of verbiage that Creative Commons feels
necessary to effectively place a work in the public domain, under the
current copyright regime, only supports the idea that it's
significantly *more* complicated than working with copyright and using
an appropriate license.
The legal code is long and complex, because it can be. The whole point of
the Creative Commons
Licenses is that the license text is not included with the work, but instead
just the license URL is included.
Therefore it is in the interest of everybody to ensure it covers everything
to the greatest extent possible.
Thus the CC0 licence takes only one line to apply to a work.
#<authorname>makes this work avilable under CC0
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
That is a heck of a lot simpler than including the Expat license, and people
can easilly recognize it. With Expat or similar licenses,
you should always be looking very closely to make sure no words were
changed, or if they were changed, to determine the relevance of the changes.
Of course, for software sticking with Expat makes good sense, but Expat
could be a bit of a pain to use as the license for an mp3 (for example).
IANAL, IANADD.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
