3 ms·
Licensing is not that simple. From the Creative Commons CC0 page. "Dedicating works to the public domain is difficult if not impossible for those wanting to co
by MattSteelblade 8y ago
Licensing is not that simple. From the Creative Commons CC0 page.
"Dedicating works to the public domain is difficult if not impossible for those wanting to contribute their works for public use before applicable copyright or database protection terms expire. Few if any jurisdictions have a process for doing so easily and reliably. Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to what rights are automatically granted and how and when they expire or may be voluntarily relinquished. More challenging yet, many legal systems effectively prohibit any attempt by these owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights, even when the author wishing to do so is well informed and resolute about doing so and contributing their work to the public domain."[1]
As an aside, I have no sympathy for companies that would refuse to use software licensed under MIT because they need to provide attribution.
[1] https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0 https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc...
- nbsd4life 8y agoI don't see people dropping sqlite en masse.
- MattSteelblade 8y agoI'm not sure how to interpret this comment. If you're making a reference to SQLite being in the Public Domain, there's a page on SQLite's website for organizations to purchase a Warranty of Title, which shows organizations can be skittish about anything.[1] Are you referring to a program that is being dropped because it's not in the Public Domain? If so, I am for an example. As a potential counterexample, I am not aware of a drop of usage on, say, cURL, which is widely distributed by countless organizations and which uses the MIT license. [1] https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html