4 ms·

I've read that on CC's website. Can you point me to some examples where US'ians (of which I am one) declared something public domain, and some country acted aga

by delish 10y ago

I've read that on CC's website. Can you point me to some examples where US'ians (of which I am one) declared something public domain, and some country acted against someone who used the US'ians work?

fossuser 10y ago
I think it's more that it's poorly legally defined (I'm not a lawyer). By default copyright grants you five rights which I think last until 75 years after you die (90 for contract work if I remember correctly) [1]. - The right to reproduce the copyrighted work - The right to prepare derivative works based upon the work - The right to distribute copies of the work to the public - The right to perform the copyrighted work publicly - The right to display the copyrighted work publicly I think the creative commons license exists to give explicit perpetual and irrevocable access to these five rights - public domain is work where the copyright has expired or was done by a public organization like the government. It's my understanding loosely saying 'I release this as public domain' doesn't give as much of a guarantee since it's not possible to give up your copyright that way - you could later argue you thought public domain meant something different. It didn't used to be this way in the US. Copyright was retroactively extended and made default (you used to have to register to get its protection). It was originally intended to 'promote the progress of science and useful arts' with limited time monopolies as the means to do so for the public benefit. It was meant as a incentive to create - the retroactive extension doesn't follow in this context since work that already exists didn't need incentive to be created. You could also argue that it's unlikely you'd need the rights after you're dead. Today it hurts the public more than it helps. [1] http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html
Hello71 10y ago
even GPL has not really been tested in court (VMware case doesn't count yet), so the odds of CC0 being tested is low. however, there are (at least) two good reasons for using CC0 anyways: 1. there is arguably a chilling effect if you make up your own license. I don't know how much that applies in this case, but look at how json is being removed from Debian and has been banned from Fedora for the undefinable phrasing in its license. this leads me to 2. just because it has not been tested doesn't mean it isn't a good idea; I am not aware of anyone who has been killed by a PC falling on their head, but if I were to attempt mounting a PC on my ceiling, I would seek help rather than cobbling something I just made up. even better, if there are plans on the internet that tens of engineers have verified to be reasonable, I should use those instead of complaining that they are too "fashionable".

by delish 10y ago

I've read that on CC's website. Can you point me to some examples where US'ians (of which I am one) declared something public domain, and some country acted against someone who used the US'ians work?

fossuser 10y ago

I think it's more that it's poorly legally defined (I'm not a lawyer). By default copyright grants you five rights which I think last until 75 years after you die (90 for contract work if I remember correctly) [1]. - The right to reproduce the copyrighted work - The right to prepare derivative works based upon the work - The right to distribute copies of the work to the public - The right to perform the copyrighted work publicly - The right to display the copyrighted work publicly I think the creative commons license exists to give explicit perpetual and irrevocable access to these five rights - public domain is work where the copyright has expired or was done by a public organization like the government. It's my understanding loosely saying 'I release this as public domain' doesn't give as much of a guarantee since it's not possible to give up your copyright that way - you could later argue you thought public domain meant something different. It didn't used to be this way in the US. Copyright was retroactively extended and made default (you used to have to register to get its protection). It was originally intended to 'promote the progress of science and useful arts' with limited time monopolies as the means to do so for the public benefit. It was meant as a incentive to create - the retroactive extension doesn't follow in this context since work that already exists didn't need incentive to be created. You could also argue that it's unlikely you'd need the rights after you're dead. Today it hurts the public more than it helps. [1] http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html

Hello71 10y ago

even GPL has not really been tested in court (VMware case doesn't count yet), so the odds of CC0 being tested is low. however, there are (at least) two good reasons for using CC0 anyways: 1. there is arguably a chilling effect if you make up your own license. I don't know how much that applies in this case, but look at how json is being removed from Debian and has been banned from Fedora for the undefinable phrasing in its license. this leads me to 2. just because it has not been tested doesn't mean it isn't a good idea; I am not aware of anyone who has been killed by a PC falling on their head, but if I were to attempt mounting a PC on my ceiling, I would seek help rather than cobbling something I just made up. even better, if there are plans on the internet that tens of engineers have verified to be reasonable, I should use those instead of complaining that they are too "fashionable".