6 ms·

There is significant debate as to whether public domain even exists except through copyright expiry. Indeed, the text of Creative Commons's "CC0" pseudo-public

There is significant debate as to whether public domain even exists except through copyright expiry. Indeed, the text of Creative Commons's "CC0" pseudo-public-domain declaration largely consists of admissions of this. Why not use a public license like CC0 or CC? It'll accomplish the same thing and is widely recognized as valid.

pessimizer 14y ago
Or just include a text copy of this blogpost. It's as clear as a bell explaining all the rights he's not reserving.
- SeanLuke 14y ago
  Because "clear as a bell" is not a legally recognized concept.
  - Snoptic 14y ago
    Why do you say that?
    - BCM43 14y ago
      I think the biggest problem is definitions. Keep in mind that copyright means very different things internationally. Let's compare the CC0 text to this one. Note that I'm not a lawyer, and this is mostly conjecture, but pulled from a reasonable amount of reading I've done on the subject. See: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode Part 1: This talks about what copyright means. Given there is no universal definition, this clarifies exactly what is being given away. Part 2: This is worth quoting. . To the greatest extent permitted by, but not in contravention of, applicable law, Affirmer hereby overtly, fully, permanently, irrevocably and unconditionally waives, abandons, and surrenders all of Affirmer's Copyright and Related Rights and associated claims and causes of action, whether now known or unknown (including existing as well as future claims and causes of action), in the Work (i) in all territories worldwide, (ii) for the maximum duration provided by applicable law or treaty (including future time extensions), (iii) in any current or future medium and for any number of copies, and (iv) for any purpose whatsoever, including without limitation commercial, advertising or promotional purposes (the "Waiver"). Notice how this is unambiguous, and takes into account many different cases. Compare that the the blog post: There is no need to email me for permission — use my content however you want! Email it, share it, reprint it with or without credit. Change it around, put in a bunch of swear words and attribute them to me. It’s OK. First of all, what does use mean? Does that mean I can share it with others, and they have the same right to it? And is he allowed to take it back? What happens if he decides he does not want to have people giving away his books anymore? He's not said that he can't change it in the future. CC0 explicitly says it last for as long as legally permissible. Furthermore, what about in countries like Germany, where you can't actually give up your copyright? CC0 has a fallback (part 3) that essentially says "if I can't give up my rights to this, this is the license I am releasing it under", then provides a license with no restrictions. I've been packaging software for Debian recently, and dealing with copyright stuff. When you start distributing data internationally for a large organization, you really want to make sure all of your ducks are in a row.
    - pixl97 14y ago
      Because most bells are not clear (transparent), and language can be interpreted many different ways. Take the classic sentence "Snoptic, go help jack off a horse." Most people would assume you meant "Go help Jack, [get down] off of a horse." Throw a lawsuit, some lawyers, and a village idiot in there and you may find you are contractually obligated to masturbate a large domestic animal.
ezequiel-garzon 14y ago
Why do you mention the notion of expiration? Wouldn't that apply instead to old (say, pre-1923) works? If anything, I believe the author's very right of placing a (recent) work in the public domain is what is debated. Which... to me is beyond unfair and absurd, but may very well be "the law"... An interesting example appears in SQLite's copyright page [1]. They acknowledge that, even though the code has been placed in the public domain, some legal teams may advise their companies to purchase a license. [1] http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- 11001 14y ago
  > An interesting example appears in SQLite's copyright page [1]. They acknowledge that, even though the code has been placed in the public domain, some legal teams may advise their companies to purchase a license. This is very interesting. Can someone here please elaborate on it?
  - kijin 14y ago
    Although SQLite is supposed to be in the public domain, some jurisdictions don't recognize public domain, or some corporations might have legal teams that get very uncomfortable about the lack of an explicit license. In that case, you can pay $1,000 for a piece of paper that says you have the right to use SQLite. It keeps lawyers happy.
- liljimmytables 14y ago
  The legal trouble with public domain is the question "how did it get here?" In the case of expiry, that's simple: you can no longer assert control over the work- it's too old. In the case of a deliberate admission of release of copyright, how do you defend that? If, as a lame example, I take something that is public domain and claim it as my own work, how do you demonstrate that it's not? Because I'm not the original author? But that means that the author is still exerting some sort of implicit right, even if they don't pursue it themselves. This isn't a natural way of thinking about ownership, but it is a legal problem and so some organisations shy away from hard PD.
thurn 14y ago
See also the "Unlicense" for something explicitly designed for source code: http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/. I find this preferable to something like the MIT license because it doesn't include the annoying requirement to include a copy of the license with the software, which is especially problematic for e.g. javascript libraries.
- dmm 14y ago
  The ISC license is only 8 lines, including the no warranty clause. Without the no-warranty clause it's a single sentence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license
- graue 14y ago
  My solution when I want to do PD for source code is to include a small statement referencing CC0, like this: programname: Brief description of program Written by My Name <my@email>, 2013 This software and associated documentation files (the "Software") is released under the CC0 Public Domain Dedication, version 1.0, as published by Creative Commons. To the extent possible under law, the author(s) have dedicated all copyright and related and neighboring rights to the Software to the public domain worldwide. The Software is distributed WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY. If you did not receive a copy of the CC0 Public Domain Dedication along with the Software, see <http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/> I trust the CC0 dedication more than other options; it seems very carefully written.
  - SeanLuke 14y ago
    I would never use your code. Even if this crazy bit of non-license were interpreted as a license, all you are doing is claiming that you are releasing copyright rights. You are not releasing patent rights. So by using your code, I'm opening myself up to you suing me for patent violation. Furthermore, "to the extent permitted by law" could mean, depending on the jurisdiction, as "not". You've put the onus on me to determine whether your goofy pseudolicense is legal or not. I think CC0 is very wrong for code. I don't understand why people are so against a decent academic license in lieu of a murky public domain declaration of questionable legality and no patent release.
Snoptic 14y ago
A random CC0 publication doesn't get HN publicity
- eksith 14y ago
  I like to think HN publicity comes because the publication was interesting in its own right; not just because of the license.
mpyne 14y ago
Just because people debate it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. See http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html for example.
baddox 14y ago
One reason is that those "public licenses" are still based on the notion that the creator of digital content inherently has some sort of exclusive authority over that content, which some content creators dislike.
resu_nimda 14y ago
Can you elaborate on what it means if public domain doesn't exist? In other words, what are the implications of doing it his way vs using that license? As I see it, he's trying to remove himself from the concept of copyright entirely, so adding a license is against the entire point. Especially when that license effectively says there is no license, that seems like a caricature of exactly what he doesn't like. I share a similar view, it feels very "clean" and refreshing. Put the content out there, let people use it how they want, end of story. Obviously, though, it's not practical for all use cases currently.
bitwize 14y ago
More a fan of the WTFPL myself.
pfedor 14y ago
There is significant debate as to whether public domain even exists except through copyright expiry. Such serious claim requires some serious citation. It is certainly not true as stated, since all original works produced by the government are in the public domain regardless of when they were created (e.g., NASA images and many US coins designs.) The first Google result for [public domain existence debate] is your comment. I haven't come across any evidence that any such debate exists, and plenty of sources to support the fact of the existence of public domain (some given by others in this thread.)

pessimizer 14y ago

Or just include a text copy of this blogpost. It's as clear as a bell explaining all the rights he's not reserving.

SeanLuke 14y ago
Because "clear as a bell" is not a legally recognized concept.
- Snoptic 14y ago
  Why do you say that?
  - BCM43 14y ago
    I think the biggest problem is definitions. Keep in mind that copyright means very different things internationally. Let's compare the CC0 text to this one. Note that I'm not a lawyer, and this is mostly conjecture, but pulled from a reasonable amount of reading I've done on the subject. See: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode Part 1: This talks about what copyright means. Given there is no universal definition, this clarifies exactly what is being given away. Part 2: This is worth quoting. . To the greatest extent permitted by, but not in contravention of, applicable law, Affirmer hereby overtly, fully, permanently, irrevocably and unconditionally waives, abandons, and surrenders all of Affirmer's Copyright and Related Rights and associated claims and causes of action, whether now known or unknown (including existing as well as future claims and causes of action), in the Work (i) in all territories worldwide, (ii) for the maximum duration provided by applicable law or treaty (including future time extensions), (iii) in any current or future medium and for any number of copies, and (iv) for any purpose whatsoever, including without limitation commercial, advertising or promotional purposes (the "Waiver"). Notice how this is unambiguous, and takes into account many different cases. Compare that the the blog post: There is no need to email me for permission — use my content however you want! Email it, share it, reprint it with or without credit. Change it around, put in a bunch of swear words and attribute them to me. It’s OK. First of all, what does use mean? Does that mean I can share it with others, and they have the same right to it? And is he allowed to take it back? What happens if he decides he does not want to have people giving away his books anymore? He's not said that he can't change it in the future. CC0 explicitly says it last for as long as legally permissible. Furthermore, what about in countries like Germany, where you can't actually give up your copyright? CC0 has a fallback (part 3) that essentially says "if I can't give up my rights to this, this is the license I am releasing it under", then provides a license with no restrictions. I've been packaging software for Debian recently, and dealing with copyright stuff. When you start distributing data internationally for a large organization, you really want to make sure all of your ducks are in a row.
  - pixl97 14y ago
    Because most bells are not clear (transparent), and language can be interpreted many different ways. Take the classic sentence "Snoptic, go help jack off a horse." Most people would assume you meant "Go help Jack, [get down] off of a horse." Throw a lawsuit, some lawyers, and a village idiot in there and you may find you are contractually obligated to masturbate a large domestic animal.

ezequiel-garzon 14y ago

Why do you mention the notion of expiration? Wouldn't that apply instead to old (say, pre-1923) works? If anything, I believe the author's very right of placing a (recent) work in the public domain is what is debated. Which... to me is beyond unfair and absurd, but may very well be "the law"... An interesting example appears in SQLite's copyright page [1]. They acknowledge that, even though the code has been placed in the public domain, some legal teams may advise their companies to purchase a license. [1] http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
11001 14y ago
> An interesting example appears in SQLite's copyright page [1]. They acknowledge that, even though the code has been placed in the public domain, some legal teams may advise their companies to purchase a license. This is very interesting. Can someone here please elaborate on it?
- kijin 14y ago
  Although SQLite is supposed to be in the public domain, some jurisdictions don't recognize public domain, or some corporations might have legal teams that get very uncomfortable about the lack of an explicit license. In that case, you can pay $1,000 for a piece of paper that says you have the right to use SQLite. It keeps lawyers happy.
liljimmytables 14y ago
The legal trouble with public domain is the question "how did it get here?" In the case of expiry, that's simple: you can no longer assert control over the work- it's too old. In the case of a deliberate admission of release of copyright, how do you defend that? If, as a lame example, I take something that is public domain and claim it as my own work, how do you demonstrate that it's not? Because I'm not the original author? But that means that the author is still exerting some sort of implicit right, even if they don't pursue it themselves. This isn't a natural way of thinking about ownership, but it is a legal problem and so some organisations shy away from hard PD.

thurn 14y ago

See also the "Unlicense" for something explicitly designed for source code: http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/. I find this preferable to something like the MIT license because it doesn't include the annoying requirement to include a copy of the license with the software, which is especially problematic for e.g. javascript libraries.

dmm 14y ago
The ISC license is only 8 lines, including the no warranty clause. Without the no-warranty clause it's a single sentence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license
graue 14y ago
My solution when I want to do PD for source code is to include a small statement referencing CC0, like this: programname: Brief description of program Written by My Name <my@email>, 2013 This software and associated documentation files (the "Software") is released under the CC0 Public Domain Dedication, version 1.0, as published by Creative Commons. To the extent possible under law, the author(s) have dedicated all copyright and related and neighboring rights to the Software to the public domain worldwide. The Software is distributed WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY. If you did not receive a copy of the CC0 Public Domain Dedication along with the Software, see <http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/> I trust the CC0 dedication more than other options; it seems very carefully written.
- SeanLuke 14y ago
  I would never use your code. Even if this crazy bit of non-license were interpreted as a license, all you are doing is claiming that you are releasing copyright rights. You are not releasing patent rights. So by using your code, I'm opening myself up to you suing me for patent violation. Furthermore, "to the extent permitted by law" could mean, depending on the jurisdiction, as "not". You've put the onus on me to determine whether your goofy pseudolicense is legal or not. I think CC0 is very wrong for code. I don't understand why people are so against a decent academic license in lieu of a murky public domain declaration of questionable legality and no patent release.

Snoptic 14y ago

A random CC0 publication doesn't get HN publicity

eksith 14y ago
I like to think HN publicity comes because the publication was interesting in its own right; not just because of the license.

mpyne 14y ago

Just because people debate it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. See http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html for example.

baddox 14y ago

One reason is that those "public licenses" are still based on the notion that the creator of digital content inherently has some sort of exclusive authority over that content, which some content creators dislike.

resu_nimda 14y ago

Can you elaborate on what it means if public domain doesn't exist? In other words, what are the implications of doing it his way vs using that license? As I see it, he's trying to remove himself from the concept of copyright entirely, so adding a license is against the entire point. Especially when that license effectively says there is no license, that seems like a caricature of exactly what he doesn't like. I share a similar view, it feels very "clean" and refreshing. Put the content out there, let people use it how they want, end of story. Obviously, though, it's not practical for all use cases currently.

bitwize 14y ago

More a fan of the WTFPL myself.

pfedor 14y ago

There is significant debate as to whether public domain even exists except through copyright expiry. Such serious claim requires some serious citation. It is certainly not true as stated, since all original works produced by the government are in the public domain regardless of when they were created (e.g., NASA images and many US coins designs.) The first Google result for [public domain existence debate] is your comment. I haven't come across any evidence that any such debate exists, and plenty of sources to support the fact of the existence of public domain (some given by others in this thread.)