Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
John Cowan writes: Russ Nelson scripsit: And yet we know that bridges collapse. Is it reasonable to take steps against bridges collapsing? We (mostly) don't build bridges out of wood (software from moral rights countries), but instead out of steel and concrete (countries where people cannot retroactively change the license on open source software). Has anyone tried to revoke their (or their predecessor's) license and lost in court? That's something different. I know that there's a theory which says that copyright permissions, even if granted irrevokably, can be withdrawn. That's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about moral rights, where you can put something under an open source license which (at least in our theory) allow changes without limit and yet the law of the country where moral rights exist allows the copyright holder to *prohibit* changes without limit. I hear a lot of whistling past the graveyard here. As people point out, it's never happened yet, and so it never will happen. Not a cause for concern; move along, nothing to see here. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ 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?
Lawrence Rosen writes: If you want to worry about copyright law, consider 17 USC 203. [1] Tell me what you experience as you drive over that bridge I'll tell you in 35 years. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ 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?
And yet we know that bridges collapse. Is it reasonable to take steps against bridges collapsing? We (mostly) don't build bridges out of wood (software from moral rights countries), but instead out of steel and concrete (countries where people cannot retroactively change the license on open source software). Lawrence Rosen writes: Russ Nelson asked: Larry, have you ever been driving over a bridge that collapsed? Not that I can recall. :-) Out of fear of that very result, though, I support increased infrastructure spending by our government. But I don't stress out every time I drive over a bridge or when I use open source software that is owned by an individual who wants to reserve her moral rights. Indeed, I respect moral rights in the ways that I license and use open source software and I advise respectful attribution whenever appropriate. Does the protection of moral rights require anything onerous of you? Best, /Larry -Original Message- From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 10:43 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain? Larry, have you ever been driving over a bridge that collapsed? -russ Lawrence Rosen writes: Russ, have you ever experienced that inferiority in actual open source software? /Larry (from my tablet and brief) Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Oleksandr Gavenko writes: Moral Rights: Only some countries claim Moral Rights. And as you point out, this is very problemmatic for Open Source Software. We have traditionally held that a license is a license is a license, but it's clear that OSI Approved Open Source contributions from people who live in countries that claim Moral Rights is inferior to people who live in countries which don't. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ 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?
Larry, have you ever been driving over a bridge that collapsed? -russ Lawrence Rosen writes: Russ, have you ever experienced that inferiority in actual open source software? /Larry (from my tablet and brief) Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Oleksandr Gavenko writes: Moral Rights: Only some countries claim Moral Rights. And as you point out, this is very problemmatic for Open Source Software. We have traditionally held that a license is a license is a license, but it's clear that OSI Approved Open Source contributions from people who live in countries that claim Moral Rights is inferior to people who live in countries which don't. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] New OSI FAQ items posted about Public Domain and CC0.
Karl Fogel writes: Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com writes: Karl, those are excellent FAQ entries! They summarize quite well the non-consensus reached on our lists. Good work! /Larry Larry, thanks so much for saying so. So far we've got +1s from you and from Josh Berkus... I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop! :-) It's a good summary. Well done, Karl. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]
Rick Moen writes: its mission to ensure that OSI Certified licences really convey the To be clear, that would be OSI Approved licenses. It turns out -- and Bruce can hardly be blamed for not having a clue, because we didn't either -- that Certification has some pretty struct requirements under the law; requirements we couldn't meet given our desire that use of the OSI Approved trademark be contingent solely on use of a license which we decided met with the OSD. If OSI elects to impose such a minimum requirement, it wouldn't necessarily need to amend OSD, but rather could find that OSD#2 implies it. Two lines of thought there: Yes, we can interpret what the OSD says, and we have, just as Debian interprets what the DFSG says (in different ways, I might point out, even though the words are practically the same). Or, we can make a constitutional amendment like we did with OSD#10. I think the latter procedure is more transparent. First because we put the question to people, and second because once the question is answered we modify the primary text, rather than expecting them to understand all the case law. [1] Albeit, people who spend significant time addressing other people's rhetorical questions generally need a better hobby. What if I was to ask a rhetorical question now? -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]
Removing the CC's again. Alexander, you have twice been barred from license-discuss because of your repetitve arguments which do not address points already made by other people. I am no longer on the OSI board nor the OSI postmaster, but I will be happy to explain the situation to the current OSI board and you can be banned again. Now, in this particular case, Mr. Moen has pointed to a web page of his which addresses Dr. Bernstein's arguments. There is NO POINT in copying from Dr. Bernstein's web page arguments which have already been replied-to. You should look at Mr. Moen's page, and address his arguments. If you think Mr. Moen has failed to address some portion of Dr. Bernstein's argument, then you should say that. But repetition is repetition and is not helpful. -russ Alexander Terekhov writes: On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: [...] a fallback permissive licence, the document's fundamental reason for existing is foolhardy: the delusional belief that creative works can be safely magicked into the public domain despite a worldwide copyright regime, and the equally delusional belief that it's even desirable to try (and thereby, among other problems, have no protection against warranty claims). http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html Placing documents into the public domain Most rights can be voluntarily abandoned (waived) by the owner of the rights. Legislators can go to extra effort to create rights that can't be abandoned, but usually they don't do this. In particular, you can voluntarily abandon your United States copyrights: It is well settled that rights gained under the Copyright Act may be abandoned. But abandonment of a right must be manifested by some overt act indicating an intention to abandon that right. See Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 104 (9th Cir. 1960). Micro-Star v. Formgen Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998). Note for people not familiar with legal citations: After a District Court makes its decision in a United States court case, the losing party can appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals that supervises the district court. These Circuit Courts of Appeals are manned by about 200 of the nation's most experienced judges. Each appeal is heard by three of these appellate judges; for example, the Micro-Star v. Formgen appeal was heard by Alex Kozinski, David R. Thompson, and Stephen S. Trott. Judge Kozinski, with agreement from the other two judges, wrote the decision in the case (in 1998). My quote is from Judge Kozinski's decision. Does the public domain exist in Europe too? Yes. You can voluntarily abandon your European copyrights. You can't abandon certain reputation rights (such as the right to stop people from removing your name from your work), but you can abandon your copyrights. How do I place my work into the public domain? The normal way to abandon a copyright is to make a clear written dedication of the work to the public domain. For example: Most documents have a conventional location for a copyright notice (e.g., the bottom of page 1 of a scientific paper). You can write Public domain in this location rather than Copyright 2005, Copyright 2006, etc. This, by itself, clearly satisfies the overt act test. You can write a subsequent document saying I hereby place my paper `On The Origin Of Species' into the public domain. This, by itself, clearly satisfies the overt act test. How do courts resolve disputes over public-domain status? The Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instructions, 2007 edition, Section 17.19, states a model for the text that courts give to juries: 17.19 COPYRIGHT - AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - ABANDONMENT The defendant contends that a copyright does not exist in the plaintiff's work because the plaintiff abandoned the copyright. The plaintiff cannot claim ownership of the copyright if it was abandoned. In order to show abandonment, the defendant has the burden of proving each of the following by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. the plaintiff intended to surrender [ownership] rights in the work; and 2. an act by the plaintiff evidencing that intent. Mere inaction [, or publication without a copyright notice,] does not constitute abandonment of the copyright; however, [this may be a factor] [these may be factors] for you to consider in determining whether the plaintiff has abandoned the copyright. If you find that the plaintiff has proved [his] [her] [its] claim[s] in accordance with Instruction[s] [insert cross reference to the pertinent instructions on the plaintiff's theory of infringement], your verdict should be for the plaintiff, unless you find that the defendant has proved each of the elements of this affirmative defense, in which event your verdict should be for the defendant. See also Section 20.19 in the 2001
Re: [License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]
Alexander Terekhov writes: May I suggest that you finally do your own research, Mr. Nelson? You're the one who wants to convince me of something. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
