Why?

[Alex Rousskov]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Rick Moen wrote:

> > 	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
>
> In any event, note that the page doesn't (even at that) assert that such
> a declaration is legally effective.

I believe the context implies that such a declaration is believed to
be legally effective. Creative Commons probably do not want a legal
liability arising from "asserting effectiveness". I bet they have an
"as-is" disclamer somewhere. Ah, yes, here it is:
	http://creativecommons.org/policies#disclaimer

> > but, again, this solution has probably never been tested in
> > courts, and even it has been, it does not guarantee you anything.
> > The same is true for any license, of course.
>
> GPLv2 was glancingly tested in the MySQL AB v. Progress Software
> case, which went as far as preliminary rulings before being settled.

Again, by the very nature of legal law, no case and no set of cases
can guarantee a single interpretation of the current law or that the
current law will not change (sometimes retroactively!).

> It should be pointed out that a "public domain declaration" would
> _not_ be a licence, but rather an attempt to nullify copyright title

Yes, I should have said "The same is true for any legal statement" not
just "any license".

Alex.
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3