5 ms·

1. re: Public Domain Let's see: a) random person on the internet (SeanLuke) says you can't dedicate your work to Public Domain b) Creative Commons, which has

1. re: Public Domain Let's see: a) random person on the internet (SeanLuke) says you can't dedicate your work to Public Domain b) Creative Commons, which has a staff of lawyers, including very prominent and respected Lawrance Lessig: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Public_domain http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Public_domain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain 2. re: "obviousness". There's nothing "obvious" about IEEE's greed. The stated goal of IEEE is http://www.ieee.org/about/index.html http://www.ieee.org/about/index.html: "IEEE is the world’s largest professional association dedicated to advancing technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity. IEEE and its members inspire a global community through IEEE's highly cited publications, conferences, technology standards, and professional and educational activities." The "obvious" thing, consistent with their stated mission would be to try to disseminate useful information to the largest number of people, like, say, Wikipedia or Khan Academy. It's sad and shameful that they put profits above "advancing technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity".

stan_rogers 15y ago
Bringing up the Creative Commons in this respect is sort of undermining your own argument. CC0[1] is a license acknowledging that, while it may be legally impossible to voluntarily and irrevocably extinguish copyright in works in which copyright naturally subsumes (putting a work into the public domain proper), as is the case in Canada under the Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42), to the extent possible under law, you make a grant of license equivalent to usage rights for works in the public domain. The results are similar, but the universal grant of license is revocable within the lifetime of the copyright (that is, the license may be withdrawn, and use after the withdrawal that is not ongoing from the period of the license would be subject to explicit grants of license).
SeanLuke 15y ago
Downmodded for what I thought was a pretty factual comment posted under my own name. It appears that hackernews is becoming reddit. So in response: > b) Creative Commons, which has a staff of lawyers, including very prominent and respected Lawrance Lessig As I understand it, Larry's position on this is controversial. There is no legal instrument in US copyright law to allow for public domain dedication, and specific parts of US copyright law essentially forbid it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_Sta... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_th... Larry Rosen (whom I hope you admit is no slouch when it comes to licensing) has this to say: http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj16.htm http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj16.htm "Just as there is nothing in the law that permits a person to dump personal property in the public highway, there is nothing that permits the dumping of intellectual property into the public domain — except as happens in due course when any applicable copyrights expire. Until those copyrights expire, there is no mechanism in the law by which an owner of software can simply elect to place it in the public domain." If you look carefully at the Creative Commons' CC0 license, and its associated documentation, you see that Creative Commons is fully aware that they're being... optimistic. See: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ Some quotes: "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." and: "CC0 helps solve this problem by giving creators a way to waive all their copyright and related rights in their works to the fullest extent allowed by law." [note the couching st the end] and my personal favorite couching: "While we can't be certain that all copyright and related rights will indeed be surrendered everywhere, we are confident that CC0 lets you sever the legal ties between you and your work to the greatest extent legally permissible." > 2. re: "obviousness". There's nothing "obvious" about IEEE's greed. The stated goal of IEEE is http://www.ieee.org/about/index.html http://www.ieee.org/about/index.html: I didn't say it was good, or even moral. But to anyone who publishes papers with IEEE, or indeed most any other publisher, it is indeed obvious.

stan_rogers 15y ago

Bringing up the Creative Commons in this respect is sort of undermining your own argument. CC0[1] is a license acknowledging that, while it may be legally impossible to voluntarily and irrevocably extinguish copyright in works in which copyright naturally subsumes (putting a work into the public domain proper), as is the case in Canada under the Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42), to the extent possible under law, you make a grant of license equivalent to usage rights for works in the public domain. The results are similar, but the universal grant of license is revocable within the lifetime of the copyright (that is, the license may be withdrawn, and use after the withdrawal that is not ongoing from the period of the license would be subject to explicit grants of license).

SeanLuke 15y ago

Downmodded for what I thought was a pretty factual comment posted under my own name. It appears that hackernews is becoming reddit. So in response: > b) Creative Commons, which has a staff of lawyers, including very prominent and respected Lawrance Lessig As I understand it, Larry's position on this is controversial. There is no legal instrument in US copyright law to allow for public domain dedication, and specific parts of US copyright law essentially forbid it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_Sta... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_th... Larry Rosen (whom I hope you admit is no slouch when it comes to licensing) has this to say: http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj16.htm http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj16.htm "Just as there is nothing in the law that permits a person to dump personal property in the public highway, there is nothing that permits the dumping of intellectual property into the public domain — except as happens in due course when any applicable copyrights expire. Until those copyrights expire, there is no mechanism in the law by which an owner of software can simply elect to place it in the public domain." If you look carefully at the Creative Commons' CC0 license, and its associated documentation, you see that Creative Commons is fully aware that they're being... optimistic. See: http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ Some quotes: "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." and: "CC0 helps solve this problem by giving creators a way to waive all their copyright and related rights in their works to the fullest extent allowed by law." [note the couching st the end] and my personal favorite couching: "While we can't be certain that all copyright and related rights will indeed be surrendered everywhere, we are confident that CC0 lets you sever the legal ties between you and your work to the greatest extent legally permissible." > 2. re: "obviousness". There's nothing "obvious" about IEEE's greed. The stated goal of IEEE is http://www.ieee.org/about/index.html http://www.ieee.org/about/index.html: I didn't say it was good, or even moral. But to anyone who publishes papers with IEEE, or indeed most any other publisher, it is indeed obvious.