[License-discuss] Can copyrights be abandoned to the public domain?

[Chris Travers]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Tom Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 11:24 AM, Ben Tilly wrote:
>> Based on http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 and similar
>> articles, I'd long believed that a declaration that you were
>> abandoning copyright was a meaningless farce.
>>
>> Then by accident today I ran across http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html
>> which claims the opposite, and cites actual court decisions as
>> evidence.
>>
>> Is D. J. Bernstein out of his depth here, or does he have a valid point?
>
> This question is hotly debated, and the answer boils down to the worst
> sort of "maybe, sortof, kindof". Ask 10 different lawyers, and you'll
> probably get 10 different answers. (Not to mention that the answer
> almost certainly changes based on the jurisdiction.)
>

It really depends.  I would assume that if you release anonymously and
explicitly disclaim copyright, that the code can be effectively public
domain.  I am not aware of any jurisdiction that forbids anonymous
publication, especially when the author seeks to remain anonymous.

I don't see how copyright can be enforced when it is both explicitly
disclaimed and the link with the author is severed.  There would be no
way to enforce it, nobody to go after for implicit warranties, etc.
After all it would be like asking whether an anonymous pamphlet left
at a college cafeteria was copyrighted.  IANAL though, but IIRC, the
Bern convention makes it sufficient that the author's name is
associated with the work for copyright to exist and this doesn't reach
that level.

Are there any cases where copyright could be enforced or required,
where code was anonymously published through a means not directly
traceable to the initial publication?  I mean if I put my code up on
privatepaste, and then link to in anonymous Slashdot comments, is it
still protected by copyright if it is not traceable to me?

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers