Re: Copyright question

[Rob Kendrick <rjek@...>]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:19:54PM +0200, Stefan Reich wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Rob Kendrick <rjek@rjek.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 05:06:10PM +0200, Stefan Reich wrote:
> >> > Wrong. 1-clause BSD/ISC is the easiest. Public Domain is a very fuzzy idea.
> >>
> >> Huh? Fuzzy? It means: Do what you want, I allow anything. Clearest and
> >> sharpest statement ever.
> >
> > No, that's not what public domain means.
> 
> >From Wikipedia:
> 
> "Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by
> intellectual property rights at all, if the intellectual property
> rights have expired, or if the intellectual property rights are
> forfeited."
> 
> Is that not the same thing? 

No, absolutely not.  Sure, in some countries the upshot may be the same,
but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.  Saying "Do what you
want, I allow anything" is a *licence*.  And a bad one at that.  That is
completely different to not being covered by intellectual property
rights laws.

> I'm not sure what you're doing here. Are you deliberately trying to be confusing...?

No, I'm trying to clear up a confusion you have :)

> >  And as such, you've just
> > demonstrated why it's a fuzzy idea.  It's a term that's best avoided,
> > because in many countries it has no legal meaning.  Use something
> > explicit.
> 
> Laws are stupid entities that will soon be relegated to history.
> 
> "Legal" matters will soon be irrelevant.

A notion that has gone though our entire history :)

B.