Legal Status of Public Domain

[Charles Childers]

Having completed a lot of research into the legal aspects of sharing
code, I've concluded that it is not possible to directly dedicate any
new work into the public domain in the United States or any other
country whose law I have studied.

As Retro has traditionally been considered public domain, this needs
to be addressed. I will likely release 10.2 under the ISC License
(ISCL), which follows:

-----
Copyright (c) 4-digit year, Company or Person's Name

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for
any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the
above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all
copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL
WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR
PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER
TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR
PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
-----

Discussion on this is welcome, and I'm willing consider alternatives
that preserve the freedom traditionally promised to the users of
Retro.

Charles R. Childers

[sixforty]

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:45:01 -0400
Charles Childers <charles....@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Having completed a lot of research into the legal aspects of sharing
> code, I've concluded that it is not possible to directly dedicate any
> new work into the public domain in the United States or any other
> country whose law I have studied.
>

I'd be interested to know the short version of why you concluded this was so for the United States. If you have time, I'm probably not the only one interested. If it's too long, ah, well . . . :)

> As Retro has traditionally been considered public domain, this needs
> to be addressed.

Yep. And the ISCL you quoted or something similar is as good as is likely available.

Thanks for your research on this.

--
sixforty <s...@sixforty.net>

[Charles Childers]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:12 PM, sixforty<s...@sixforty.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:45:01 -0400
> Charles Childers <charles....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Having completed a lot of research into the legal aspects of sharing
>> code, I've concluded that it is not possible to directly dedicate any
>> new work into the public domain in the United States or any other
>> country whose law I have studied.
>>
>
> I'd be interested to know the short version of why you concluded this was so for the United States. If you have time, I'm probably not the only one interested. If it's too long, ah, well . . . :)

I've spent a lot of time over the last two years reading USC Title 17,
which covers copyright law in the US and various other pieces of law
that relate to copyright. Though there are some congressional statutes
(37 CFR 201.26) that offer some support for public domain software,
the actual law does provide a way to disavow copyright on any work
created since the Berne Convention. Technically it *may* be possible
in the US, but without a direct court ruling on the topic or change to
Title 17, it can't be relied on and may prove problematic in the
future.

In other countries, such as Germany, it's even worse. Not only is it
definitely impossible, there is no actual public domain. Having an
actual license would be helpful for the many users not in the US.

>> As Retro has traditionally been considered public domain, this needs
>> to be addressed.
>
> Yep. And the ISCL you quoted or something similar is as good as is likely available.
>
> Thanks for your research on this.
>
> --
> sixforty <s...@sixforty.net>
>
> >
>

-- crc

[Todd Thomas]