3 ms·
> as even things put into the public domain can have a catch This is, by definition, untrue: If something is in the public domain, it is without an owner. It i
by derleth 16y ago
> as even things put into the public domain can have a catch
This is, by definition, untrue: If something is in the public domain, it is without an owner. It is unowned. Anybody can do anything they want with it, including using it in proprietary software for money and passing it off as their own work. (Assuming nobody is enforcing a code that bans plagiarism, which is totally orthogonal to copyright.)
If there is a catch, then the work is not in the public domain at all. Being owned by someone but released under a liberal license does not put something into the public domain, as the work is still under copyright.
In short: Public domain vs. copyrighted is a binary distinction. 'Freedom' is a continuum on multiple axes.
- jasonlotito 16y agoIt's my understanding that in the past, things have lapsed into the public domain as copyright expired. However, laws changed, and these public domain items were put back under copyright protection. I cannot remember where I read it, or under what context. That being said, what I said was, afaik, incorrect. If something is specially put into the public domain, it's there. The things I read about weren't explicitly put into the public domain by the copyright owner. They just fell out of copyright. My apologies.