On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 10:50:09AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 04:07:36PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 09:25:43AM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote: > > > |You can do whatever you like with this package. The code is placed > > > |at the public domain. > > > "Placing in the public domain" is not a valid concept in all > > jurisdictions. It's not always possible to abandon copyright. > > It's probably better to say explicitly what freedoms you intend to grant. > > In such jurisdictions, what are the legal rights of an author who has > placed his work in the public domain in a jurisdiction where the public > domain is honored? Would such a statement be treated as being equivalent > to a very liberal license, or would it be treated as a no-op?
AIUI (and IANAL), it would be treated as a very liberal license, but the exact boundaries of "very liberal" would be subject to interpretation by the courts. I don't know if this would include the full range of the right to distribute modified versions -- there might be some limitations related to e.g. principles of artistic integrity. To put things in perspective: I have no qualms about using code marked "public domain". I just prefer to avoid the ambiguity in code that I publish myself, and I recommend this to others too. At minimum, it helps users who really don't know what "public domain" means; there's plenty of confusion around the term. -- Richard Braakman to troll, v.: to explore, in an electronic forum, the subtle distinction between being an idiot and pretending to be an idiot.
