3 ms·

The way people and organizations stand in the way of public domain releases is beyond rude to the point of genuine evil. My code is just code. It should be po

The way people and organizations stand in the way of public domain releases is beyond rude to the point of genuine evil. My code is just code. It should be possible to let all others read it without obligation. There must be some way to restrain this relentless desire to cocoon everything in layers of legal entanglement. It is just code and I as the author desire others to be able to read it. This is not a crazy plot or rocket science. There might be technical problems with the name itself, but the license text explains the intent and refers to the https://unlicense.org/ https://unlicense.org/ site which has additional clarification. Proper use as recommended on the site has zero legal ambiguity. The idea that "BSD0" or "CC0" are better names makes no sense whatsoever. Public domain releases are made by those who do not want the baggage of a BSD or Creative Commons license. Maybe someone in these organizations should talk to someone familiar with marketing and namespaces to come up with a real solution? The CC0 suggestion is especially ironic since that has not approved. It doesn't actually exist as a legal standard which makes it unappealing. The OSI, FSF, FANG and other such companies, and the European Union need to get over the idea that they can and even must dictate all aspects of intellectual property ownership as they see fit. My code is not theirs and this is the core issue. My code is mine and thus mine to give away completely free without being encumbered by licensing schemes intended to yield control or profit. That their schemes for control and profit are so out of control that there is no agreed upon or even consistently imagined escape is a sign that they are operating beyond rational limits.

gnud 5y ago
> My code is not theirs and this is the core issue. This is _exactly_ why a lot of jurisdictions assign/assume copyright by default, and make it hard to 'remove'. Otherwise authors would see their work ripped off in a lot of inventive ways. When the default state is that every work is copyrighted, that removes a lot of possible confusion, and possible excuses.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Right. Under the older copyright regime in the US, you more or less had to add the appropriate incantation/symbols and send a copy to the Library of Congress or you pretty much had no leg to stand on collecting compensation if Disney or whoever decided to rip you off. The US decided that wasn't a good thing and that works should be copyrighted automatically. (Registration still has some benefits for collecting on copyright claims.) But that also means you now need to get rid of that automatic copyright, assuming you can, if you want to do so.
Bishop_ 5y ago
I am largely ignorant to license law so forgive this probably basic question If the idea of public domain is clearly established in law should it not be enough to have a license file that simply reads. Everything in this repository is public domain, all contributions to this repository are public domain. Obviously if someone were to submit code stolen from a project under another license it would create an issue. But the same could be said for any project.
- withinboredom 5y ago
  No, I’m some jurisdictions you cannot just give away your rights.
- Blahah 5y ago
  The concept of 'public domain' in the sense of all legal property rights and responsibilities being relinquished is not clearly established everywhere, and where it is, it sometimes applies only in certain circumstances (like years after the death of the creator).
scratcheee 5y ago
Why does the concept of "public domain" actually matter though? It's clearly a legally frought concept, and nobody actually believes in public domain itself as an ideal (as far as I know), its just seen as a means to an end, the end being a release of all "legal entanglement" upon the work. If that means is problematic, why not use a less problematic means? Specifically, there exist licenses that give everyone every possible right that they can be given without needing to invoke public domain at all, and that should be sufficient for anyone who doesn't want to retain their default rights, so why is public domain anything more than a legal dead-end? (ignoring of course that it's still relevant as the eventual end of copyright once someone's been dead for longer than Walt Disney)
samhw 5y ago
I'm struggling to see what your point is here. > There must be some way to restrain this relentless desire to cocoon everything in layers of legal entanglement. It's very simple. We, in most countries, live in a legal system where creations default to maximum IP protection rather than minimum IP protection. Everyone has their own opinion about that - and it's fascinating to read all of them - but this is the world we live in. Some people seem to have trouble understanding that and have retreated to the imaginary land of Shouldistan. > Proper use as recommended on the site has zero legal ambiguity. See above: we are not in Shouldistan. > The CC0 suggestion is especially ironic since that has not approved. It doesn't actually exist as a legal standard which makes it unappealing. They are words. They have meaning. The licence text doesn't need to 'exist' in whatever ontology you've dreamed up. You can write your very own licence and it will have legal effect by dint of the fact that words have meaning. > The OSI, FSF, FANG and other such companies, and the European Union need to get over the idea that they can and even must dictate all aspects of intellectual property ownership as they see fit. The European Union can dictate all aspects of intellectual property ownership as it sees fit[0]. The others don't, nor do they think they can, because that would be stupid, and none of those groups are (that) stupid. I don't know what you're referring to in suggesting that they believe that. I'm not altogether sure that you do either. Again, you (very likely) do not personally dictate the law of the land where you live, so you'll have to suck it up and write a licence that conveys the legal restrictions (or lack thereof) that you intend to apply to your code. I'm sorry that we don't live in a land where the law is exactly as you want it to be. You can stay in Shouldistan, raging against the fact that the world isn't exactly as you would like it to be, or you can get smart, grit your teeth, accept that the world is imperfect, and negotiate it as best you can to achieve your goals. [0] ...more or less, in most member states, for the purposes of this conversation.

gnud 5y ago

> My code is not theirs and this is the core issue. This is _exactly_ why a lot of jurisdictions assign/assume copyright by default, and make it hard to 'remove'. Otherwise authors would see their work ripped off in a lot of inventive ways. When the default state is that every work is copyrighted, that removes a lot of possible confusion, and possible excuses.

ghaff 5y ago
Right. Under the older copyright regime in the US, you more or less had to add the appropriate incantation/symbols and send a copy to the Library of Congress or you pretty much had no leg to stand on collecting compensation if Disney or whoever decided to rip you off. The US decided that wasn't a good thing and that works should be copyrighted automatically. (Registration still has some benefits for collecting on copyright claims.) But that also means you now need to get rid of that automatic copyright, assuming you can, if you want to do so.

Bishop_ 5y ago

I am largely ignorant to license law so forgive this probably basic question If the idea of public domain is clearly established in law should it not be enough to have a license file that simply reads. Everything in this repository is public domain, all contributions to this repository are public domain. Obviously if someone were to submit code stolen from a project under another license it would create an issue. But the same could be said for any project.

withinboredom 5y ago
No, I’m some jurisdictions you cannot just give away your rights.
Blahah 5y ago
The concept of 'public domain' in the sense of all legal property rights and responsibilities being relinquished is not clearly established everywhere, and where it is, it sometimes applies only in certain circumstances (like years after the death of the creator).

scratcheee 5y ago

Why does the concept of "public domain" actually matter though? It's clearly a legally frought concept, and nobody actually believes in public domain itself as an ideal (as far as I know), its just seen as a means to an end, the end being a release of all "legal entanglement" upon the work. If that means is problematic, why not use a less problematic means? Specifically, there exist licenses that give everyone every possible right that they can be given without needing to invoke public domain at all, and that should be sufficient for anyone who doesn't want to retain their default rights, so why is public domain anything more than a legal dead-end? (ignoring of course that it's still relevant as the eventual end of copyright once someone's been dead for longer than Walt Disney)

samhw 5y ago

I'm struggling to see what your point is here. > There must be some way to restrain this relentless desire to cocoon everything in layers of legal entanglement. It's very simple. We, in most countries, live in a legal system where creations default to maximum IP protection rather than minimum IP protection. Everyone has their own opinion about that - and it's fascinating to read all of them - but this is the world we live in. Some people seem to have trouble understanding that and have retreated to the imaginary land of Shouldistan. > Proper use as recommended on the site has zero legal ambiguity. See above: we are not in Shouldistan. > The CC0 suggestion is especially ironic since that has not approved. It doesn't actually exist as a legal standard which makes it unappealing. They are words. They have meaning. The licence text doesn't need to 'exist' in whatever ontology you've dreamed up. You can write your very own licence and it will have legal effect by dint of the fact that words have meaning. > The OSI, FSF, FANG and other such companies, and the European Union need to get over the idea that they can and even must dictate all aspects of intellectual property ownership as they see fit. The European Union can dictate all aspects of intellectual property ownership as it sees fit[0]. The others don't, nor do they think they can, because that would be stupid, and none of those groups are (that) stupid. I don't know what you're referring to in suggesting that they believe that. I'm not altogether sure that you do either. Again, you (very likely) do not personally dictate the law of the land where you live, so you'll have to suck it up and write a licence that conveys the legal restrictions (or lack thereof) that you intend to apply to your code. I'm sorry that we don't live in a land where the law is exactly as you want it to be. You can stay in Shouldistan, raging against the fact that the world isn't exactly as you would like it to be, or you can get smart, grit your teeth, accept that the world is imperfect, and negotiate it as best you can to achieve your goals. [0] ...more or less, in most member states, for the purposes of this conversation.