On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Rick Moen wrote: > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ > > In any event, note that the page doesn't (even at that) assert that such > a declaration is legally effective.
I believe the context implies that such a declaration is believed to be legally effective. Creative Commons probably do not want a legal liability arising from "asserting effectiveness". I bet they have an "as-is" disclamer somewhere. Ah, yes, here it is: http://creativecommons.org/policies#disclaimer > > but, again, this solution has probably never been tested in > > courts, and even it has been, it does not guarantee you anything. > > The same is true for any license, of course. > > GPLv2 was glancingly tested in the MySQL AB v. Progress Software > case, which went as far as preliminary rulings before being settled. Again, by the very nature of legal law, no case and no set of cases can guarantee a single interpretation of the current law or that the current law will not change (sometimes retroactively!). > It should be pointed out that a "public domain declaration" would > _not_ be a licence, but rather an attempt to nullify copyright title Yes, I should have said "The same is true for any legal statement" not just "any license". Alex. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3