Re: Copyright question

[KHMan <keinhong@...>]

On 8/24/2011 1:10 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Stefan Reich writes:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Rob Kendrick 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? I'm not sure what you're doing here. Are
> > you deliberately trying to be confusing...?
>
> _Works_ can become public domain, physical _copies_ don't become unowned
> or unlicensed.  Licensing, including BSD licensing, is something
> connected with the acquisition of concrete copies and the governing
> transactions.
> [snip snip]

Didn't we go through most of this in past threads? Most of the 
arguments, the strident assertions that Germany does this and 
that, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Looks like 
it will be repeated ad infinitum.

Are we doomed to repeat this discussion every month? :-)

--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia