5 ms·

Is `This work is public domain.` insufficient?

ketzu 5y ago
Yes, because in some jurisdictions it is not possible to discard your rights.
zinekeller 5y ago
No, no, no, no. Nope. That's enough in US but never enough (like, legally impossible) in Europe or parts of Asia (that's why CC0 has a fallback permissive license).
- ravenstine 5y ago
  I'm curious... if Creative Commons can't even create a public domain license that applies to both US and Europe, then what would it actually take to do so? Seems insane that any system can't accept "this is public domain" as all you need.
  - Taywee 5y ago
    Some places, like Germany, don't recognize a public domain at all.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      In a way we do, called Gemeinfrei. But the only way to transfer something to it, is dying and waiting 70 years.
      - Brian_K_White 5y ago
        What is the status of work that no one knows where it came from? A recipe for a cake is written on a paper and left on a bulletin board in town. It has no name and no one witnessed it being posted. Everyone sees it and now knows how to make this cake. The author may or may not be dead for 70 years. Is it illegal to even document this cake recipe? You couldn't legally recount it in a news article or history text book without being able say who the author was and prove that they either granted a copy right or are known to be dead for 70 years? Or worse, you are not only incentivised but essentially obligated to claim the authorship yourself just so you have someone to assign it to? The thing undeniably exists regardless that the legal structure provides no place for it. It's patently ridiculous. (guilty, terrible pun intended).
        zinekeller 5y ago
        > A recipe for a cake And there we come to the nuance of copyrights, at least in the US: you can't copy the text of the recipe, but the recipe itself don't have protection itself. Specifically, the text of the recipe is literature (which is protected), the recipe itself are instructions (which is not protected). This is the whole justification into clean-room design and reverse-engineering in software. Also psuedonymous or even anonymous publications do have copyright (insert a legalheap of asterisks here). This actually sadly results into something called "orphan works", where they don't knew (or if they knew cannot find the next-of-kin/successor company/maybe even the government where the company was incorporated) where they can ask for permission.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        wongarsu 5y ago
        That's called an orphan work. You can apply §61 UrhG, which in this case would mean donating it to an archive, museum, library or university, who can then search for the author and after turning up empty are allowed to publish it. From there you can probably quote it, citing them as your source.
    - marcosdumay 5y ago
      Well, I imagine they recognize a license saying "you can do anything with this". It probably just has different legal status than public domain.
      - germanier 5y ago
        No. There are certain rights to a work you cannot waive, no matter how much you want to. Even less without actually specifying what "anything" entails.
        3np 5y ago
        While you can not waive certain rights, you absolutely can proclaim "you can do anything with this". You can choose to not exercise your legal right to attribution, for example. So what you’re saying is not in conflict with the person you’re replying to. (You can argue that there’s some legal risk at hand here; for example, if someone writes a book with the above and you start selling copies of it claiming you wrote it, the author can still come back and demand that you credit them as author and have that right enforced in court) I think this is great. Case in point: blanket EULA for an image sharing site can not remove your right to be attributed, should your photo end up in an ad campaign or a newspaper. This means that many European newspapers actually make sure to not misattribute photographs, which has the side-effect of improving transparency in news reporting. So grabbing a photo online and wrongfully claiming it’s from the wrong time, place and source is not something that tends to happen in practice. And if it does, there’s a clear path to recourse that doesn’t require "lawyering up", you just file a claim with evidence.
      - davidjytang 5y ago
        I only imagine something like "but you give up the right to sue me if any harm comes from whatever you do with this" would need to be appended to "you can do anything with this".
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    > Seems insane that any system can't accept "this is public domain" as all you need. Except that's exactly (legally, anyways) sane in Europe (not EU, it predates EU). Read about moral rights, and you will learn the complexities of what the US squishes into a single copyright regime. Note: moral rights was translated from French legal term droits moraux, there's no religious meaning in moral here.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      "Except that's exactly sane in Europe" This is up to debate. I am a european resident and I think it is insane, that the reason I am not free to donate my work into the public domain is supposed to be "moral rights".
      - zinekeller 5y ago
        Fair, I should put "legally sane", I lost the nuance there.
      - michaelmrose 5y ago
        It's not that anyone is denying you your right. You aren't "free" to donate your work to flutbark bargleboff either not because its forbidden but because its undefined. Contract your lawmaker and have them define it legally. Its undefined because there isn't money to be gained by giving stuff away and for practical purposes current solutions seem to be work good enough for practical purposes for those who want to do so robs any such movement of much momentum thus far.
        hutzlibu 5y ago
        "It's not that anyone is denying you your right" Of course they are. I am not free do do with my IP as I want. (gifting it to everyone). I have to keep ownership. (even though I reject the concept of IP alltogether) But you are right with your explanation why it is like this. There is no money in it to change it for good and current solutions work "good enough" for practical purposes (giving everyone the right to use my IP). So I will likely also just go on use the existing solutions, instead of running against walls and trying to change the laws.
- Jach 5y ago
  Nevertheless I suspect sqlite is used in Europe or parts of Asia without trouble.
  - zinekeller 5y ago
    1) Hipp, Wyrick & Company, Inc. (Hwaci, the legal owner of the code) does not actively enforce its rights available. This does not mean it will not affect operations in certain countries, while computer code is not (yet) affected, music definitely is (see GEMA in Germany). Additionally, in an adverse purchase of a company Hwaci could be bought by a scrupulous corporation (à la patent trolls of today) and enforce the copyright in countries where Hwaci has residual rights. If somehow that did not happen but Hwaci faces bankruptcy and wound up in favour to the State of North Carolina (the default option), we will have a similar problem as a particular Canadian company that unfortunately currently escapes my mind. This is what worries large companies: a permissive license which is recognised internationally cannot be annulled (unless they breached the very simple requirement), sure for new users it would suck (even GPL doesn't close the hole), but the new company cannot sue companies with existing licences because they have a very permissive license. 2) Actually, SQLite has this: https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license
    - Jach 5y ago
      I've long been aware of their $6k warranty of title. Only someone from Hwaci could give an accurate count of purchasers (they only say "Most people use SQLite without any kind of license or support"), but I would bet that not even half of the developer-users and distributors of sqlite directly (let alone those of sqlite indirectly through other products or libraries that bring it in or embed it, which they are under no obligation to disclose) in countries like Germany have actually purchased one. I doubt it's even a significant money-maker for them given their range of available things for purchase (https://www.sqlite.org/prosupport.html https://www.sqlite.org/prosupport.html). It's not a problem in practice, it's exceedingly unlikely to ever become a problem, but sure, a lawyer can find a vulnerability in everything, even with GPL (which is part of why some US companies have a blanket "no GPL" policy). I'm glad they offer the warranty of title and take money from companies with edgy lawyers, though. $6k is small as legal fees go. It's in general a lazy monetization strategy I broadly agree with and I've been hoping GitHub under MS's stewardship would help spearhead a simple way for people/companies to buy secondary-licensed copies of software without having to contact the author about it. (I think I got the idea from Zed Shaw around the time MS bought GH.) Like, a lot of software out there isn't a mess of contributors like the linux kernel each holding their own copyright, and thus much of it can be relicensed or dual-licensed without fuss. When people license something under the AGPL or even public domain if they're copying sqlite, sometimes they include something in the readme about being open to selling an alternatively licensed version/warranty of title to companies who have some issue. But even if they don't explicitly mention it, companies can still fruitfully contact such authors and make a deal. This happens all the time on twitter of all places, with journalists asking some user (who may not even be legally identifiable from just their handle) to re-use their apparently original photo or video. Sometimes the user just gives permission, sometimes they demand "pay me", sometimes a payment is actually made. Douglas Crockford has given permission (not sure if he got any money out of it) at least to IBM to use his software for evil, again showing his infamous clause is only a problem for people who decide to make it one. Basically, I'd rather not tell people how they can license (or not license, as per public domain declarations) their code, and while it's fine to be aware of usability tradeoffs and it's fine to know that some edgy companies or users in other countries might write you off for your choice, it's important not to overstate the actual risks involved relative to the base rate risks already out there (like patent trolls) and it's important to recognize that solving the problems in ways even the edgiest of lawyers can be mostly happy with is often possible. Having blanket policies instead of pursuing those solutions is also a choice people are free to make. (Writing this comment led me to https://web.archive.org/web/20120510151444/http://methodlogic.net/BSDFossil.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120510151444/http://methodlogi... which is interesting in that it could suggest how further knowledge of tradeoffs and future pushback in the beginning may have led sqlite to be put under a license, however I don't suppose anything legally stops the authors agreeing to relicense in a new version since they retain a clean title, it's just there's no compelling practical reason like seeking more contributors.)
- jimmaswell 5y ago
  So FOSS contributions are impossible in Europe, or they just take some legal work?
  - Scarblac 5y ago
    FOSS contributions don't need something to be added to the public domain to be possible.
  - 3np 5y ago
    Neither, really, it’s just that "public domain" is a US-specific legal term that doesn’t have equivalents in most countries. For one example, in Sweden you can never fully sign away the right to have creative work attributed to your name (until 50/70 years after creation/creator death, depending on nature of the work) as a creator. You can make a pinky promise to not claim that right, but you can’t fully waive it so you could always have a change of heart and demand to be credited by name later. IIRC this came from a notion of protecting artists and photographers from predatory contracts from the print industry or something similar. Commercial rights etc can all be fully transferred, of course.
freemint 5y ago
Yes. At least if you want people who have to talk to lawyers to use the code. Lawyers don't like that. For some anecdotes see this talk https://youtube.com/watch?v=MkJkyMuBm3g https://youtube.com/watch?v=MkJkyMuBm3g (worth the hour, althoug Rob Landley write the same thing on his website too but to lazy to Google that.

Yes, because in some jurisdictions it is not possible to discard your rights.

No, no, no, no. Nope. That's enough in US but never enough (like, legally impossible) in Europe or parts of Asia (that's why CC0 has a fallback permissive license).

ravenstine 5y ago
I'm curious... if Creative Commons can't even create a public domain license that applies to both US and Europe, then what would it actually take to do so? Seems insane that any system can't accept "this is public domain" as all you need.
- Taywee 5y ago
  Some places, like Germany, don't recognize a public domain at all.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    In a way we do, called Gemeinfrei. But the only way to transfer something to it, is dying and waiting 70 years.
    - Brian_K_White 5y ago
      What is the status of work that no one knows where it came from? A recipe for a cake is written on a paper and left on a bulletin board in town. It has no name and no one witnessed it being posted. Everyone sees it and now knows how to make this cake. The author may or may not be dead for 70 years. Is it illegal to even document this cake recipe? You couldn't legally recount it in a news article or history text book without being able say who the author was and prove that they either granted a copy right or are known to be dead for 70 years? Or worse, you are not only incentivised but essentially obligated to claim the authorship yourself just so you have someone to assign it to? The thing undeniably exists regardless that the legal structure provides no place for it. It's patently ridiculous. (guilty, terrible pun intended).
      - zinekeller 5y ago
        > A recipe for a cake And there we come to the nuance of copyrights, at least in the US: you can't copy the text of the recipe, but the recipe itself don't have protection itself. Specifically, the text of the recipe is literature (which is protected), the recipe itself are instructions (which is not protected). This is the whole justification into clean-room design and reverse-engineering in software. Also psuedonymous or even anonymous publications do have copyright (insert a legalheap of asterisks here). This actually sadly results into something called "orphan works", where they don't knew (or if they knew cannot find the next-of-kin/successor company/maybe even the government where the company was incorporated) where they can ask for permission.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - wongarsu 5y ago
        That's called an orphan work. You can apply §61 UrhG, which in this case would mean donating it to an archive, museum, library or university, who can then search for the author and after turning up empty are allowed to publish it. From there you can probably quote it, citing them as your source.
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    Well, I imagine they recognize a license saying "you can do anything with this". It probably just has different legal status than public domain.
    - germanier 5y ago
      No. There are certain rights to a work you cannot waive, no matter how much you want to. Even less without actually specifying what "anything" entails.
      - 3np 5y ago
        While you can not waive certain rights, you absolutely can proclaim "you can do anything with this". You can choose to not exercise your legal right to attribution, for example. So what you’re saying is not in conflict with the person you’re replying to. (You can argue that there’s some legal risk at hand here; for example, if someone writes a book with the above and you start selling copies of it claiming you wrote it, the author can still come back and demand that you credit them as author and have that right enforced in court) I think this is great. Case in point: blanket EULA for an image sharing site can not remove your right to be attributed, should your photo end up in an ad campaign or a newspaper. This means that many European newspapers actually make sure to not misattribute photographs, which has the side-effect of improving transparency in news reporting. So grabbing a photo online and wrongfully claiming it’s from the wrong time, place and source is not something that tends to happen in practice. And if it does, there’s a clear path to recourse that doesn’t require "lawyering up", you just file a claim with evidence.
    - davidjytang 5y ago
      I only imagine something like "but you give up the right to sue me if any harm comes from whatever you do with this" would need to be appended to "you can do anything with this".
- zinekeller 5y ago
  > Seems insane that any system can't accept "this is public domain" as all you need. Except that's exactly (legally, anyways) sane in Europe (not EU, it predates EU). Read about moral rights, and you will learn the complexities of what the US squishes into a single copyright regime. Note: moral rights was translated from French legal term droits moraux, there's no religious meaning in moral here.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "Except that's exactly sane in Europe" This is up to debate. I am a european resident and I think it is insane, that the reason I am not free to donate my work into the public domain is supposed to be "moral rights".
    - zinekeller 5y ago
      Fair, I should put "legally sane", I lost the nuance there.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      It's not that anyone is denying you your right. You aren't "free" to donate your work to flutbark bargleboff either not because its forbidden but because its undefined. Contract your lawmaker and have them define it legally. Its undefined because there isn't money to be gained by giving stuff away and for practical purposes current solutions seem to be work good enough for practical purposes for those who want to do so robs any such movement of much momentum thus far.
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        "It's not that anyone is denying you your right" Of course they are. I am not free do do with my IP as I want. (gifting it to everyone). I have to keep ownership. (even though I reject the concept of IP alltogether) But you are right with your explanation why it is like this. There is no money in it to change it for good and current solutions work "good enough" for practical purposes (giving everyone the right to use my IP). So I will likely also just go on use the existing solutions, instead of running against walls and trying to change the laws.
Jach 5y ago
Nevertheless I suspect sqlite is used in Europe or parts of Asia without trouble.
- zinekeller 5y ago
  1) Hipp, Wyrick & Company, Inc. (Hwaci, the legal owner of the code) does not actively enforce its rights available. This does not mean it will not affect operations in certain countries, while computer code is not (yet) affected, music definitely is (see GEMA in Germany). Additionally, in an adverse purchase of a company Hwaci could be bought by a scrupulous corporation (à la patent trolls of today) and enforce the copyright in countries where Hwaci has residual rights. If somehow that did not happen but Hwaci faces bankruptcy and wound up in favour to the State of North Carolina (the default option), we will have a similar problem as a particular Canadian company that unfortunately currently escapes my mind. This is what worries large companies: a permissive license which is recognised internationally cannot be annulled (unless they breached the very simple requirement), sure for new users it would suck (even GPL doesn't close the hole), but the new company cannot sue companies with existing licences because they have a very permissive license. 2) Actually, SQLite has this: https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license
  - Jach 5y ago
    I've long been aware of their $6k warranty of title. Only someone from Hwaci could give an accurate count of purchasers (they only say "Most people use SQLite without any kind of license or support"), but I would bet that not even half of the developer-users and distributors of sqlite directly (let alone those of sqlite indirectly through other products or libraries that bring it in or embed it, which they are under no obligation to disclose) in countries like Germany have actually purchased one. I doubt it's even a significant money-maker for them given their range of available things for purchase (https://www.sqlite.org/prosupport.html https://www.sqlite.org/prosupport.html). It's not a problem in practice, it's exceedingly unlikely to ever become a problem, but sure, a lawyer can find a vulnerability in everything, even with GPL (which is part of why some US companies have a blanket "no GPL" policy). I'm glad they offer the warranty of title and take money from companies with edgy lawyers, though. $6k is small as legal fees go. It's in general a lazy monetization strategy I broadly agree with and I've been hoping GitHub under MS's stewardship would help spearhead a simple way for people/companies to buy secondary-licensed copies of software without having to contact the author about it. (I think I got the idea from Zed Shaw around the time MS bought GH.) Like, a lot of software out there isn't a mess of contributors like the linux kernel each holding their own copyright, and thus much of it can be relicensed or dual-licensed without fuss. When people license something under the AGPL or even public domain if they're copying sqlite, sometimes they include something in the readme about being open to selling an alternatively licensed version/warranty of title to companies who have some issue. But even if they don't explicitly mention it, companies can still fruitfully contact such authors and make a deal. This happens all the time on twitter of all places, with journalists asking some user (who may not even be legally identifiable from just their handle) to re-use their apparently original photo or video. Sometimes the user just gives permission, sometimes they demand "pay me", sometimes a payment is actually made. Douglas Crockford has given permission (not sure if he got any money out of it) at least to IBM to use his software for evil, again showing his infamous clause is only a problem for people who decide to make it one. Basically, I'd rather not tell people how they can license (or not license, as per public domain declarations) their code, and while it's fine to be aware of usability tradeoffs and it's fine to know that some edgy companies or users in other countries might write you off for your choice, it's important not to overstate the actual risks involved relative to the base rate risks already out there (like patent trolls) and it's important to recognize that solving the problems in ways even the edgiest of lawyers can be mostly happy with is often possible. Having blanket policies instead of pursuing those solutions is also a choice people are free to make. (Writing this comment led me to https://web.archive.org/web/20120510151444/http://methodlogic.net/BSDFossil.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120510151444/http://methodlogi... which is interesting in that it could suggest how further knowledge of tradeoffs and future pushback in the beginning may have led sqlite to be put under a license, however I don't suppose anything legally stops the authors agreeing to relicense in a new version since they retain a clean title, it's just there's no compelling practical reason like seeking more contributors.)
jimmaswell 5y ago
So FOSS contributions are impossible in Europe, or they just take some legal work?
- Scarblac 5y ago
  FOSS contributions don't need something to be added to the public domain to be possible.
- 3np 5y ago
  Neither, really, it’s just that "public domain" is a US-specific legal term that doesn’t have equivalents in most countries. For one example, in Sweden you can never fully sign away the right to have creative work attributed to your name (until 50/70 years after creation/creator death, depending on nature of the work) as a creator. You can make a pinky promise to not claim that right, but you can’t fully waive it so you could always have a change of heart and demand to be credited by name later. IIRC this came from a notion of protecting artists and photographers from predatory contracts from the print industry or something similar. Commercial rights etc can all be fully transferred, of course.

freemint 5y ago

Yes. At least if you want people who have to talk to lawyers to use the code. Lawyers don't like that. For some anecdotes see this talk https://youtube.com/watch?v=MkJkyMuBm3g https://youtube.com/watch?v=MkJkyMuBm3g (worth the hour, althoug Rob Landley write the same thing on his website too but to lazy to Google that.