<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/24/20 6:44 PM, Thorsten Glaser
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:Pine.BSM.4.64L.2004242239010.8901@herc.mirbsd.org">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">It’s not:
|This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.
This is a voluntary relinquishing of copyright protection done by the
authors. (Whether this is valid in the country of origin is subject to
their local laws; someone told me that even in the USA it’s not always
that easy.) But even if it is, the work is still protected in all other
countries, or AT THE VERY LEAST those that don’t allow PD dedication,
due to the Berne convention, which requires a country B to protect a work
from country A the same as it would protect a work from country B, and we
know there have been cases of US government employees successfully defen‐
ding their copyright in a work in IIRC Germany.
|Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or
|distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled
|binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any
|means.
This is not a licence statement (which would not be valid anyway, because
a licence is issued as copyright instrument while PD means absence of
copyright protection) but an explanation of the previous paragraph.
|In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors
|of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the
|software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit
Again, this is <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>only<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> a PD statement, not a licence, and <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>especially<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>
not a fallback licence.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Even though the person using this document in association with
code may be mistaken about the concept of public domain, the
intent of the grantor is very clear. The grantor wants any
recipient of the code to be able to copy, modify, publish, use,
compile, sell, or |distribute the software, either in source code
form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or
non-commercial, and by any means. <br>
</p>
<p>For this document to not meet the definition of "open source," a
court would have to say that there is no such thing as "public
domain" in the jurisdiction or it isn't available in the
situation, the court will then have to ignore what the person <i>thinks</i>
it means as clearly described in the document, reaching a
conclusion that the document is entirely meaningless and instead
the code has no license whatsoever. That is not something that
would happen in a US court. I would be very interested in hearing
whether there is any jurisdiction where the grantor's clear
intention would be disregarded in this way.<br>
</p>
<p>Pam<br>
</p>
<p><br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>