Please add "Public Domain" to "license" list

[Rod Dixon]

I think it's worth noting that dedicating a work to the public domain - -
however that might be achieved - - often reflects a value judgment by the
author to promote unfettered access to information. Although open source,
it seems, promotes a similar objective, there are also many additional
considerations not the least of which is promoting viable business models.
Hence, rather than irreveocably give up a copyright interest (i.e. cede
your work to the public domain), open source authors use copyright to
promote open information sharing as well as a range of other important
objectives.

Rod


On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Bob Doyle wrote:

> David,
>
> Although they target "content" itself rather than source code, you might
> take a look at the several Creative Commons licenses
> (http://www.creativecommons.org), including one Public Domain.
>
> Another similar effort is the Open COntent License
> (http://www.opencontent.org/).
>
>
> David A. Wheeler wrote:
>
> >Hello - I'd like to ask OSI to add "Public Domain" to the
> >open source software license list at:
> > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php
> >
> >I have several reasons for this request.
> >
> >First, it clarifies the status of public domain software.
> >Some people do not realize that
> >source code in the "public domain" is open source software.
> >I've been having discussions with a lawyer specifically on that
> >point - the lawyer doesn't think public domain software is
> >open source software.  If I could point to the OSI and say
> >"look! there it is!", it'd be much clearer.
> >
> >Second, a "license" text would help people who intend to
> >make their source code public domain.  Some programmers don't
> >realize that copyright is now automatic, and that they HAVE to
> >EXPLICITLY give it into the public domain for it to be
> >public domain.  And even if they know that, they may not know
> >the right legal incantations to do so.  Some suggested language
> >would go a long way.
> >
> >Third, you could make it clear that the SOURCE CODE has to be
> >in the public domain for this to work.  Declaring that an
> >object code is in the public domain isn't enough.
> >
> >Yes, strictly speaking "public domain" isn't a license.
> >But it has all the workings of one, so for consistency's sake I
> >think you can treat it as a license and all works out.
> >
> >Version 1.4 of the open source definition made this clear; its
> >section 10 states that certification marks could be shown for
> >"for source code explicitly placed in the public domain."
> >However,  when section 10 was removed, this clarity was
> >removed as well.
> >
> >The OSI has always had the position that public domain software
> >is open source software.  I just ask that the OSI clearly
> >state this in their current text.
> >
> >Thank you very much.
> >
> >--
> >license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Bob Doyle
> http://www.skyBuilders.com
> 77 Huron Avenue
> Cambridge, MA 02138
> 617-876-5678
>
>
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
>

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