Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 01:10:49PM -0400, Matthew Flaschen wrote: On 08/14/2012 11:52 AM, Tom Callaway wrote: Fedora used to spend a lot of time stressing out over this question, but recently, after counsel with Red Hat Legal, we concluded that if someone is explicitly and clearly abandoning their copyright on a work (as in CC-0, for example), treating that work in good faith as being in the public domain presented a very minimal amount of risk, especially since such a declaration, were it to go to trial, would likely limit the effectiveness of the copyright holder suing for infringement. CC0 (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode) actually has an explicit license fallback in section 3, for cases where the PD dedication fails. I would be interested to hear if the counsel's conclusion would hold without such fallback. 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. Since most of the self-described public domain code we encounter is not actually under CC0 (most of it is legacy code, in rarer cases it's whole packages like SQLite), CC0 is not directly relevant. 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. - RF ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
Quoting Ben Tilly (bti...@gmail.com): Based on http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 and similar articles, I'd long believed that a declaration that you were abandoning copyright was a meaningless farce. Then by accident today I ran across http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html which claims the opposite, and cites actual court decisions as evidence. His cites simply do not support his conclusion, by the way. I dissect that matter in passing on http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html . ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:22:05AM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: 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'), Yes. I agree with you that 'public domain' is a misnomer (but no more than, say, the use of 'proprietary' to mean 'not free-as-in-freedom software'). but rather whether Red Hat, Inc. will be reasonably protected against infringement claims by either the owner's success or by estoppel. Close enough, but I wouldn't want you to think Red Hat is just concerned about Red Hat. We presume that software we consider open source/free software allows certain permissions to everyone, not just Red Hat, or we'd classify it otherwise.[1] The public domain-labeled stuff we distribute in open source distribution contexts is code we consider open source software (equivalent, essentially, to what is now achievable through the quite detailed CC0). There are strange things I've seen in my time, like public domain for noncommercial purposes. We would treat that as nonfree/non-open-source. - RF [1]Incidentally, I seem to remember encountering at least one case of a license that said the equivalent of everyone *except* Red Hat is free to use this code. Also not free software/open source. :) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
Quoting Richard Fontana (rfont...@redhat.com): Yes. I agree with you that 'public domain' is a misnomer (but no more than, say, the use of 'proprietary' to mean 'not free-as-in-freedom software'). FWIW, I feel the latter has domain-specific meaning, here; i.e., that 'proprietary' functions legitimately as a term of art within discussion of software. Yes, that's not what 'proprietary' means elsewhere (i.e., the qualtiy of being owned). However, meanings have contexts.[1] Close enough, but I wouldn't want you to think Red Hat is just concerned about Red Hat. Truth, and a point well worth making. [1] I'd rather be pissed in London than in San Francisco. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
Ben Tilly bti...@gmail.com writes: Based on http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 and similar articles, I'd long believed that a declaration that you were abandoning copyright was a meaningless farce. Then by accident today I ran across http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html which claims the opposite, and cites actual court decisions as evidence. Is D. J. Bernstein out of his depth here, or does he have a valid point? I realize this thread has already developed, but FWIW: http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
Quoting Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com): Indeed. If the question is: Is this legally possible?, the answer might very well be No, Yes, or Maybe, depending on the situation, the jurisdiction, and the case law at the time you ask the question. This is what I tried to get across on my Web page, basically (along with pointing out that a simple permissive licence has more-deterministic effects, and also clarifying that copyright abandonment and public domain are distinct concepts). P.S. C A L L A W A Y. Like the golf clubs. Yes, really sorry about that, Tom. Naturally, I spotted it just after posting. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
On 2012-08-14, Ben Tilly wrote: Based on http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 and similar articles, I'd long believed that a declaration that you were abandoning copyright was a meaningless farce. Then by accident today I ran across http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html which claims the opposite, and cites actual court decisions as evidence. Is D. J. Bernstein out of his depth here, or does he have a valid point? Look to Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (my selections): http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726 Article 6bis Moral Rights: 1. To claim authorship; to object to certain modifications and other derogatory actions; 2. After the author's death; 3. Means of redress (1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to **object** to any distortion, mutilation or other **modification** of, or other derogatory **action** in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. Ever with any possible licence agreement that fully grand you permission unlimitedly modify copyrighted work original author still can limit some changes to his work if you fall under the jurisdiction of the countries which sing Berne Convention. Same applied to things that you state is in Public Domain in countries which sing Berne Convention. So while author alive you may be litigated by him if changes to his work prejudicial his honour. -- Best regards! ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Tom Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote: On 08/14/2012 11:24 AM, Ben Tilly wrote: Based on http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 and similar articles, I'd long believed that a declaration that you were abandoning copyright was a meaningless farce. Then by accident today I ran across http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html which claims the opposite, and cites actual court decisions as evidence. Is D. J. Bernstein out of his depth here, or does he have a valid point? This question is hotly debated, and the answer boils down to the worst sort of maybe, sortof, kindof. Ask 10 different lawyers, and you'll probably get 10 different answers. (Not to mention that the answer almost certainly changes based on the jurisdiction.) It really depends. I would assume that if you release anonymously and explicitly disclaim copyright, that the code can be effectively public domain. I am not aware of any jurisdiction that forbids anonymous publication, especially when the author seeks to remain anonymous. I don't see how copyright can be enforced when it is both explicitly disclaimed and the link with the author is severed. There would be no way to enforce it, nobody to go after for implicit warranties, etc. After all it would be like asking whether an anonymous pamphlet left at a college cafeteria was copyrighted. IANAL though, but IIRC, the Bern convention makes it sufficient that the author's name is associated with the work for copyright to exist and this doesn't reach that level. Are there any cases where copyright could be enforced or required, where code was anonymously published through a means not directly traceable to the initial publication? I mean if I put my code up on privatepaste, and then link to in anonymous Slashdot comments, is it still protected by copyright if it is not traceable to me? Best Wishes, Chris Travers ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
Chris Travers scripsit: I don't see how copyright can be enforced when it is both explicitly disclaimed and the link with the author is severed. There would be no way to enforce it, nobody to go after for implicit warranties, etc. You could claim that it was illicitly published without your consent. -- John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan Micropayment advocates mistakenly believe that efficient allocation of resources is the purpose of markets. Efficiency is a byproduct of market systems, not their goal. The reasons markets work are not because users have embraced efficiency but because markets are the best place to allow users to maximize their preferences, and very often their preferences are not for conservation of cheap resources. --Clay Shirky ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
On 08/14/2012 11:43 PM, Chris Travers wrote: I don't see how copyright can be enforced when it is both explicitly disclaimed and the link with the author is severed. There would be no way to enforce it, nobody to go after for implicit warranties, etc. After all it would be like asking whether an anonymous pamphlet left at a college cafeteria was copyrighted. Disclaiming it as PD is again the key topic. Anonymous works are still copyrighted, at least in the U.S. (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html): In the case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. Not only that, but: If, before the end of such term, the identity of one or more of the authors of an anonymous or pseudonymous work is revealed in the records of a registration made for that work under subsections (a) or (d) of section 408, or in the records provided by this subsection, the copyright in the work endures for the term specified by subsection (a) or (b), based on the life of the author or authors whose identity has been revealed. Of course, you have to provide evidence of who the anonymous author was, but without an effective PD dedication, that alleged revelation could open up a legal battle-field. Matt Flaschen ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
Quoting Chris Travers (ch...@metatrontech.com): I would assume that if you release anonymously and explicitly disclaim copyright, that the code can be effectively public domain. If you would trust the provenance of code like that, you're a braver man than I am. -- Cheers, Overheard a hipster say 'Quinoa is kind of 2011', Rick Moenso 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
