Tony Mechelynck wrote: > On 18/09/11 22:49, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > [...] > > The problem is that if no author is mentioned, then no matter what > > copyright license is mentioned it can't be copied. That is because only > > the author can grant copyright, and if the author is unknown that means > > nothing can be granted. > > > > In the case of wikipedia the author can be considered "the wikipedia > > editors" as a collective. Quite a few open source projects have started > > doing this to avoid having to list the names of all authors. This does > > require agreeing to something, I don't know the details. > > IIUC it means that the author has either put the work in the public > domain, or given the publisher an irrevocable license until the work > falls into the public domain 75 years after the author's death. Or > something like that, IANAL, nor do I play one on TV. I think I read > somewhere that current copyright laws don't require a Š line anymore and > that the author (physical person) cannot assign all intellectual > property rights to another physical or corporate person; but don't take > my word for it.
If a document is supposed to be in the public domain, who do can we ask to testify that it is? You need to know the author for that. Catch 22. Besides that, "public domain" does not exist in some countries. I believe France is one. -- hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict: 21. Your dog has its own home page. /// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org /// \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org /// -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
