5 ms·

The Unlicense is the closest that I know of. It attempts to release the software into the public domain. Since not all jurisdictions have the notion of public d

The Unlicense is the closest that I know of. It attempts to release the software into the public domain. Since not all jurisdictions have the notion of public domain, it also explicitly waives copyright (though it doesn't mention patents).

cjbprime 4y ago
I don't have any insight into how effective Unlicense is, but to give an idea of how complicated this is: just as many jurisdictions don't let you place things into a Public Domain, or even have the legal concept of one, some (I think France?) also don't let you just waive your authorial rights. I think a full copyright license is okay, though.
- tremon 4y ago
  It's usually the moral rights (separate but related to the economic part of copyright) that can't be waived: > In most of Europe, it is not possible for authors to assign or even waive their moral rights. This is following a tradition in European copyright itself, which is regarded as an item of property which cannot be sold, but only licensed. The author can agree to waive them to a limited extent (and such terms are very common in contracts in Europe). (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_Europe) IIRC, moral rights are also always tied to the individual and not to the employer or organization. In NL, these moral rights include the following properties: > even after transferring their copyright, the original creator retains the rights to: > 1a. oppose publication of the work without attribution > 1b. oppose publication of the work under a different name than their own (applies to both the name of the work and the name of the creator) > 1c. oppose modifications of the work > 1d. oppose any kind of mutilation of disfiguration of the work, or modifications that would negatively affect the perception of the work or its creator > Of these rights, 1a can be waived entirely; 1b and 1c can be waived only with regards to the name of the work, not its creator; right 1d remains the privilege of the creator (or any designated heir) for the entire duration of the copyright itself. (from https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001886/2015-07-01/#HoofdstukI_Paragraaf6_Artikel25 https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001886/2015-07-01/#Hoofdstuk...) edit: note that (1c) talks about modifications of the original (physical) work; it doesn't necessarily apply in the same sense as the GPL, where all extensions/updates to the original codebase are also considered modifications of the same work.
chrismorgan 4y ago
Unlicense is entirely unsuitable because it explicitly only affects copyright law. It’s not that it doesn’t mention patents (for then it’d be in a similar situation to many accepted open source licenses), but that it defines its scope as something that excludes patents. See my other comments in this thread for more.

cjbprime 4y ago

I don't have any insight into how effective Unlicense is, but to give an idea of how complicated this is: just as many jurisdictions don't let you place things into a Public Domain, or even have the legal concept of one, some (I think France?) also don't let you just waive your authorial rights. I think a full copyright license is okay, though.

tremon 4y ago
It's usually the moral rights (separate but related to the economic part of copyright) that can't be waived: > In most of Europe, it is not possible for authors to assign or even waive their moral rights. This is following a tradition in European copyright itself, which is regarded as an item of property which cannot be sold, but only licensed. The author can agree to waive them to a limited extent (and such terms are very common in contracts in Europe). (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_Europe) IIRC, moral rights are also always tied to the individual and not to the employer or organization. In NL, these moral rights include the following properties: > even after transferring their copyright, the original creator retains the rights to: > 1a. oppose publication of the work without attribution > 1b. oppose publication of the work under a different name than their own (applies to both the name of the work and the name of the creator) > 1c. oppose modifications of the work > 1d. oppose any kind of mutilation of disfiguration of the work, or modifications that would negatively affect the perception of the work or its creator > Of these rights, 1a can be waived entirely; 1b and 1c can be waived only with regards to the name of the work, not its creator; right 1d remains the privilege of the creator (or any designated heir) for the entire duration of the copyright itself. (from https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001886/2015-07-01/#HoofdstukI_Paragraaf6_Artikel25 https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001886/2015-07-01/#Hoofdstuk...) edit: note that (1c) talks about modifications of the original (physical) work; it doesn't necessarily apply in the same sense as the GPL, where all extensions/updates to the original codebase are also considered modifications of the same work.

chrismorgan 4y ago

Unlicense is entirely unsuitable because it explicitly only affects copyright law. It’s not that it doesn’t mention patents (for then it’d be in a similar situation to many accepted open source licenses), but that it defines its scope as something that excludes patents. See my other comments in this thread for more.