[License-discuss] public domain recognition

[Karl Fogel]

johann Sorel <sorel.johann at inbox.com> writes:
>I am not in the usa but in Europe, public domain is not yet really
>legal' like you said.
>Yet there are so much initiatives using one of CCO/PD/BOLA/WTFPL that
>public domain is a 'De Facto'. The only people who have problems with
>it are governments and lawyer
>they will have to accept it eventually.
>
>As I said I'm not searching for an alternative to PD, but to find out
>what kind of document I could ask
>contributors to make it be more 'legal'.

You might look at the SQLite project, which IIRC considers itself in the
public domain and has presumably found a way to accept code
contributions.

Best,
-Karl

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: forums at david-woolley.me.uk
>> Sent: Fri, 03 May 2013 10:26:34 +0100
>> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] public domain recognition
>> 
>> johann Sorel wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm searching for the best course of action to develop a project in
>>> 'public domain'.
>>> I've read the FAQ and different threads on PD and CC0 in the archive.
>>> Basicaly the OSI do not recommand using PD/CCO. So ... I don't care,
>>> since it's the right choice for my objective.
>>> 
>> 
>> The best way is to work for the US government.  Even then, the work may
>> still be copyright work outside the USA.  I believe it debatable as to
>> whether an ordinary person can put something into the public domain,
>> other than by dying and waiting for 70 years, in the USA, and it is
>> almost certain that they can't do so in Europe.
>> 
>> There are no international conventions on public domain, so a public
>> domain declaration in one country may not have any effect in another,
>> whereas a copyright one would.
>> 
>> You would be much better advised to use a short licence that gave
>> permission to do almost anything under your copyright rights.
>> 
>> Even in the USA, I think it has been suggested that public domain
>> dedications don't absolve you of responsibility for consequential
>> damages, so retaining copyright and attempting to disclaim warranty is
>> generally considered safer.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> David Woolley
>> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
>> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
>> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at opensource.org
>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
>____________________________________________________________
>FREE ONLINE PHOTOSHARING - Share your photos online with your friends
>and family!
>Visit http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>License-discuss mailing list
>License-discuss at opensource.org
>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss