On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Jan 2, 2006, at 2:30 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
AFAIK, since 1978, it is *not* possible to *not* copyright a work. The best that can be done is to put a free license on it. The legal applicability of all software licenses depends on the validity of the copyright. This includes free licenses, which are designed to proclaim freedom in a way that the legal system understands.
I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S., copyright just became default then. But you can still put stuff in the public domain, you just have to do so explicitly, where as before new works were automatically public domain unless you explicitly declared and registered the copyright.
Hmm, possible, but then why don't people do it? Why do people use the MITX11 license or the SIBSD license instead of just public domain?
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Marc Lavallée wrote:
Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to "abandon" copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear."
What's the advantage of using unclear laws instead of clear free licenses such as MITX11 and SIBSD ? I mention those two as examples because they are closest to public domain and it seems that their purpose is to simulate public domain but in a legally clearer way. (GPL/LGPL has additional goals that are less close to public domain).
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada