5 ms·

> The Digest is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely with appropriate attribution of source. It sounds like they want CC-BY, but as it stands they have

> The Digest is not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely with appropriate attribution of source. It sounds like they want CC-BY, but as it stands they haven't really licensed the digest in an understandable way.

dredmorbius 10y ago
Using CC-BY would be an improvement, though the intent here is at least relatively clear. I've seen worse. Went a few rounds back in the 2000s with a developer who'd claimed simply "this has no copyright". I pointed out the several problems with that claim, and the (almost wholly) trivial approaches to fixing them. He ... wasn't interested.
- 5ilv3r 10y ago
  That's the WTFPL in a nutshell.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    No. It is, legally, difficult to divest yourself of copyright. Some people say it's possible, some people say it isn't. It's not difficult to divest yourself of your exclusive rights under copyright. Which is what the WTFPL accomplishes. It's a subtle but significant distinction. Similarly, you could: 1. Simply disclaim any copyright interest. "I disclaim all copyright interest in this work." 2. Disclaim any exclusive rights: "I disclaim all rights under copyright in this work." 3. Allow others any exclusive rights: "I grant to all parties any exclusive right under copyright." Etc. The fundamental problem is that under Berne Convention copyright, which dates to the early 20th / late 19th century (I'd have to check) in at least some jurisdictions, copyright is manifest at creation in any work. Which means these very words as I'm writing them. And there's no procedure for disclaiming those rights. The Berne Convention rules have been adopted widely particularly since the 1970s. Again: there are those who disagree that you can't claim a work is "uncopyrighted", but the ambiguity of such a comment (and the trivial means by which that ambiguity is removed) makes certain uses highly imprudent.
5ilv3r 10y ago
Isn't public domain similar? I've never heard anyone else take credit for Romeo and Juliet, but I have never considered if that was honor or law.

dredmorbius 10y ago

Using CC-BY would be an improvement, though the intent here is at least relatively clear. I've seen worse. Went a few rounds back in the 2000s with a developer who'd claimed simply "this has no copyright". I pointed out the several problems with that claim, and the (almost wholly) trivial approaches to fixing them. He ... wasn't interested.

5ilv3r 10y ago
That's the WTFPL in a nutshell.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  No. It is, legally, difficult to divest yourself of copyright. Some people say it's possible, some people say it isn't. It's not difficult to divest yourself of your exclusive rights under copyright. Which is what the WTFPL accomplishes. It's a subtle but significant distinction. Similarly, you could: 1. Simply disclaim any copyright interest. "I disclaim all copyright interest in this work." 2. Disclaim any exclusive rights: "I disclaim all rights under copyright in this work." 3. Allow others any exclusive rights: "I grant to all parties any exclusive right under copyright." Etc. The fundamental problem is that under Berne Convention copyright, which dates to the early 20th / late 19th century (I'd have to check) in at least some jurisdictions, copyright is manifest at creation in any work. Which means these very words as I'm writing them. And there's no procedure for disclaiming those rights. The Berne Convention rules have been adopted widely particularly since the 1970s. Again: there are those who disagree that you can't claim a work is "uncopyrighted", but the ambiguity of such a comment (and the trivial means by which that ambiguity is removed) makes certain uses highly imprudent.

5ilv3r 10y ago

Isn't public domain similar? I've never heard anyone else take credit for Romeo and Juliet, but I have never considered if that was honor or law.