3 ms·

Have you spoken with lawyers about this idea? At least in the United States, that’s not how copyright or public domain works. One does not need to apply for cop

by c0pium 3y ago

Have you spoken with lawyers about this idea? At least in the United States, that’s not how copyright or public domain works. One does not need to apply for copyright to receive one, and there is no mechanism for renouncing copyright. There is a belief held by some that copyright, like many other rights, can be renounced however that theory has never been tested in court and there are several dissenting opinions from notable IP lawyers. https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register

ghaff 3y ago
The MIT No Attribution (MIT-0) license is an OSI-approved license. As I've been told by at least a couple IP lawyers, the situation may be stickier in continental Europe. Most works the US federal government creates are also considered in the public domain so it doesn't seem that controversial a concept in the US.
- herval 3y ago
  code under MIT-0 is still copyrighted to its original author - it just authorizes derivative work to be done without explicitly mentioning it (which is different from public domain)
  - ghaff 3y ago
    We're getting into pretty meaningless distinctions though. Anyone can take the work, give no credit, and use it however they wish. Which sounds a lot like public domain. CC0 from Creative Commons does explicitly state "place them as completely as possible in the public domain." It does also acknowledge that it is not always possible to fully do so because of unrelinquishable moral rights and other reasons. https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/ https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/ To the original point, it may well make sense to license under MIT-0 or CC0 if they want to place a book in the public domain. The OSI's concerns about CC0 don't really apply to writing as I understand it.
- c0pium 3y ago
  The carve out for US Government work is explicitly stated in the statute. Not only does that not create a precedent for others to create copyright-free works, but if anything it makes the case that exceptions to copyright-by-default have to be explicitly defined in law. OSI approving something is meaningless from a legal standpoint, it’s just some people on the internet. Even were that not the case, creating a license is not the same as renouncing copyright. Which, again, it isn’t clear that it is possible to do under US copyright law. Edit: to be clear, MIT-0 doesn’t even attempt to renounce copyright. It merely provides slightly broader rights to holders of a license to the copyrighted work.
medler 3y ago
OP’s company is based in the UK, so I was curious if the UK had stronger mechanisms for renouncing copyright. According to this source[1], they do not: “Under United Kingdom law, the availability of [copyright] abandonment is far from clear, and statements purporting to abandon copyright may be interpreted as mere revocable licenses.” (I don’t mean to suggest that OP’s company is doing anything wrong. I assume they’re up to speed on the legal environment and are doing the right things to ensure their works are perpetually available. I just thought this was interesting). [1] https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3059&context=faculty_publications https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...

by c0pium 3y ago

ghaff 3y ago

The MIT No Attribution (MIT-0) license is an OSI-approved license. As I've been told by at least a couple IP lawyers, the situation may be stickier in continental Europe. Most works the US federal government creates are also considered in the public domain so it doesn't seem that controversial a concept in the US.

herval 3y ago
code under MIT-0 is still copyrighted to its original author - it just authorizes derivative work to be done without explicitly mentioning it (which is different from public domain)
- ghaff 3y ago
  We're getting into pretty meaningless distinctions though. Anyone can take the work, give no credit, and use it however they wish. Which sounds a lot like public domain. CC0 from Creative Commons does explicitly state "place them as completely as possible in the public domain." It does also acknowledge that it is not always possible to fully do so because of unrelinquishable moral rights and other reasons. https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/ https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/ To the original point, it may well make sense to license under MIT-0 or CC0 if they want to place a book in the public domain. The OSI's concerns about CC0 don't really apply to writing as I understand it.
c0pium 3y ago
The carve out for US Government work is explicitly stated in the statute. Not only does that not create a precedent for others to create copyright-free works, but if anything it makes the case that exceptions to copyright-by-default have to be explicitly defined in law. OSI approving something is meaningless from a legal standpoint, it’s just some people on the internet. Even were that not the case, creating a license is not the same as renouncing copyright. Which, again, it isn’t clear that it is possible to do under US copyright law. Edit: to be clear, MIT-0 doesn’t even attempt to renounce copyright. It merely provides slightly broader rights to holders of a license to the copyrighted work.

medler 3y ago

OP’s company is based in the UK, so I was curious if the UK had stronger mechanisms for renouncing copyright. According to this source[1], they do not: “Under United Kingdom law, the availability of [copyright] abandonment is far from clear, and statements purporting to abandon copyright may be interpreted as mere revocable licenses.” (I don’t mean to suggest that OP’s company is doing anything wrong. I assume they’re up to speed on the legal environment and are doing the right things to ensure their works are perpetually available. I just thought this was interesting). [1] https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3059&context=faculty_publications https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...