Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > Russ Nelson wrote: >> 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. > > Russ, among the things I worry about in FOSS, moral rights are among the > least worrisome. I'd almost welcome litigation about this issue so that we > can expunge "morality" from "software". > > If you want to worry about copyright law, consider 17 USC 203. [1] Tell me > what you experience as you drive over that bridge > Fascinating law. I will admit not to worrying about moral rights, or this specific law. For one I don't know that there is a lot of code that wouldn't be turned over in the course of 35 years. However it does make you wonder once Linus passes on if his kids might decide to pull this sort of thing and if so what the effect would be. 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?
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?
Russ Nelson wrote: > 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. Russ, among the things I worry about in FOSS, moral rights are among the least worrisome. I'd almost welcome litigation about this issue so that we can expunge "morality" from "software". If you want to worry about copyright law, consider 17 USC 203. [1] Tell me what you experience as you drive over that bridge /Larry [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203 Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: 707-485-1242 -Original Message- From: Russ Nelson [mailto:nel...@crynwr.com] Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 7:32 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: 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 ___ 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?
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?
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > [This email best viewed in HTML format] > > ** ** > > Hi Ben, > > ** ** > > It would be difficult for Linus Torvalds to complain about porn when he > intentionally released an operating system that is so ideally suited for > the delivery of porn. It would be like Michelangelo complaining because > derivatives of his statue of David revealed some private parts. > > > IANAL, but the intent of moral rights is to provide for the author's reputation for his or her work and to ensure that the author maintains some control over how the image of the work is maintained. For a practical tool this strikes me as somewhat of a mismatch just like protecting software as expression is a bit of a mismatch. For example, I don't know how Linus's moral rights would be interfered with if nobody knew that a specific porn site was being hosted on a service using the Linux kernel, although he'd seem to have a right to ask them to display a "powered by Linux" logo or refuse to let them use such a logo. 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?
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? I think not. Indeed the Raymond/Olanich paper at http://www.catb.org/esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html#changing discusses changing the license on OSS, which of course involves revoking the previous license. -- Using RELAX NG compact syntax toJohn Cowan develop schemas is one of the simplehttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan pleasures in life --Jeni Tennison ___ 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 Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > 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). Can you provide a list of software for which the license has been invalidated or retroactively changed due to moral rights in any country? Please compare the list you come up with this for quantity of instances: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures Feel free to adjust the time frame on that list to those within the time frame that software has existed. ___ 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 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?
[This email best viewed in HTML format] Hi Ben, It would be difficult for Linus Torvalds to complain about porn when he intentionally released an operating system that is so ideally suited for the delivery of porn. It would be like Michelangelo complaining because derivatives of his statue of David revealed some private parts. /Larry Description: http://www.richardclover.co.uk/images/MichelangeloDavid2.jpg Source: http://www.richardclover.co.uk/node/39 -Original Message- From: Ben Tilly [mailto:bti...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 9:45 AM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain? On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Lawrence Rosen < <mailto:lro...@rosenlaw.com> lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: > 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? Let's see. Linus Torvalds is Finnish and began Linux in Finland. As Henrik pointed out, Finnish law has the concept of moral rights, and one of those rights is the right of integrity, which can allow the copyright holder to restrict the use of his copyrighted material in ways that infringe on his honor. In particular you can say that you can't use that work for pornography. Oleksandr pointed us to <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726> http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726 which says that this moral right can be enforced even in countries which do not have moral rights in their copyright law. I am not a lawyer. I know even less about international law. My knowledge of this topic is, in fact, pretty much half an hour with Google following up references in this discussion. But it looks to me like Linus might have the ability to sue a US pornography company that is using Linux to stream their porn based on his moral right rising from Finnish copyright law. If so, then that would run directly counter to OSD #6. I trust that Linus never would do so. But if he and many other European contributers to open source projects actually *could* do that, that's not exactly a small detail. (Particularly if you were loving using open source to distribute your loving.) <>___ 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 Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote: > 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? Let's see. Linus Torvalds is Finnish and began Linux in Finland. As Henrik pointed out, Finnish law has the concept of moral rights, and one of those rights is the right of integrity, which can allow the copyright holder to restrict the use of his copyrighted material in ways that infringe on his honor. In particular you can say that you can't use that work for pornography. Oleksandr pointed us to http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P123_20726 which says that this moral right can be enforced even in countries which do not have moral rights in their copyright law. I am not a lawyer. I know even less about international law. My knowledge of this topic is, in fact, pretty much half an hour with Google following up references in this discussion. But it looks to me like Linus might have the ability to sue a US pornography company that is using Linux to stream their porn based on his moral right rising from Finnish copyright law. If so, then that would run directly counter to OSD #6. I trust that Linus never would do so. But if he and many other European contributers to open source projects actually *could* do that, that's not exactly a small detail. (Particularly if you were loving using open source to distribute your loving.) ___ 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?
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 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
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 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] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
On Friday 17 August 2012 06:51, Henrik Ingo wrote: > I believe Finland has the concept of Moral Rights. As do Norway, and most if not all nordic countries. > weird things like the right to forbid the use of my work for pornography If you make use of that right in a license, then it is not a free work or free software. if you license something using a Free license, then you are stating that Anyone can use your work as long as they adhere to the license. > or other things someone might find against my morality. What your morality happens to be has nothing to do with the "moral rights" under the law. -- Johnny A. Solbu web site, http://www.solbu.net PGP key ID: 0xFA687324 Kom Arbeidslyst og treng deg på, her skal du motstand finne. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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 Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Johnny Solbu wrote: >> On Friday 17 August 2012 02:15, Russ Nelson wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Says who? >> And why? > > I believe Finland has the concept of Moral Rights. As a IANAL summary, > the concept seems to be that even if I license or sell away the > commercial rights to my creation, I retain certain rights that I can > never give away, such as the right to be correctly cited as the author > of my works (which most FOSS licenses require anyway) and weird things > like the right to forbid the use of my work for pornography or other > things someone might find against my morality. > > I have never heard anyone actually asserting this for software. > Further, some contracts I've signed, such as with Sun Microsystem, > included language to the effect that if there are parts of my > copyright that I cannot license away, I nevertheless irrevocably waive > my right to assert the moral rights in court, even if they are still > mine since they cannot be transferred/licensed. I have no idea if such > a waiver would mean anything in court since the whole point of the law > is quite the opposite. Oh, one thing I've always wondered though is, what would happen if for instance the thousands of Nokia engineers who wrote code that went into a mobile phone started actually requiring that Nokia would acknowledge them by name as authors of the software. In open source this commonly happens, but for closed source software products it could be a lot of fun! henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 ___ 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 Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Johnny Solbu wrote: > On Friday 17 August 2012 02:15, Russ Nelson wrote: >> 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. > > Says who? > And why? I believe Finland has the concept of Moral Rights. As a IANAL summary, the concept seems to be that even if I license or sell away the commercial rights to my creation, I retain certain rights that I can never give away, such as the right to be correctly cited as the author of my works (which most FOSS licenses require anyway) and weird things like the right to forbid the use of my work for pornography or other things someone might find against my morality. I have never heard anyone actually asserting this for software. Further, some contracts I've signed, such as with Sun Microsystem, included language to the effect that if there are parts of my copyright that I cannot license away, I nevertheless irrevocably waive my right to assert the moral rights in court, even if they are still mine since they cannot be transferred/licensed. I have no idea if such a waiver would mean anything in court since the whole point of the law is quite the opposite. henrik -- henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 ___ 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 Friday 17 August 2012 02:15, Russ Nelson wrote: > 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. Says who? And why? -- Johnny A. Solbu web site, http://www.solbu.net PGP key ID: 0xFA687324 Kom Arbeidslyst og treng deg på, her skal du motstand finne. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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?
Russ, have you ever experienced that inferiority in actual open source software? /Larry (from my tablet and brief) Russ Nelson 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
Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
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
Re: [License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?
Richard Fontana writes: > 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. I've seen "copyrighted public domain software". -- --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?
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
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?
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 Cowanhttp://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 Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Tom Callaway 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?
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?
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?
Ben Tilly 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 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?
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?
On 08/14/2012 02:22 PM, Rick Moen wrote: > I've responded that of course I might be wrong, but not for non-sequitur > reasons like that. It's funny how many people cannot seem to grasp that > corporate counsel's job is to protect company legal interests, not make > pronouncements on points of legal theory. ;-> 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. That doesn't meant that in practice, a clear and thorough public domain declaration (or copyright abandonment statement) isn't safe to act on, use, wear as a hat, etc. etc. Red Hat and Fedora think it is safe enough to trust. You can decide for yourself if you think it is. We're not attempting to pronounce that public domain declarations are legally possible everywhere, but we are saying that we think in situations where there is clear intent from a copyright holder for unrestricted permissions on works, we feel it is safe for us to treat them as if they were in the public domain. ~tom P.S. C A L L A W A Y. Like the golf clubs. == Fedora Project ___ 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?
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'), but rather whether Red Hat, Inc. will be reasonably protected against infringement claims by either the owner's success or by estoppel. Since the policy conclusion you and Tom Calloway spoke of, any number of people have told me 'You must be mistaken on http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html, because Red Hat Legal allowed Prasad J. Pandit to package ndjbdns for Fedora.' I've responded that of course I might be wrong, but not for non-sequitur reasons like that. It's funny how many people cannot seem to grasp that corporate counsel's job is to protect company legal interests, not make pronouncements on points of legal theory. ;-> > 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. Thank goodness, at least it's well written and with an eye to producing desired result via other means if the direct approach fails. -- 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
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?
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. 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?
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.) 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. ~tom == Fedora Project ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
