[svlug] Fedora or Ubuntu for novis

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Alan DuBoff (aland at softorchestra.com):

> >Also, how the hell did you arrive at the conclusion that "uncertain
> >to achieve its intended effect" means "wouldn't stand up"?)
> 
> Well, you speculate on various points on points that have not been
> determined in a court of law, so it's not clear what the outcome would
> be.

In the first place, you're wrong on the "not been determined in a court
of law" bit.  There is a large body of caselaw about abandoned property.
Guess what?  Our system of laws has been finely crafted to ensure that
property doesn't, in general, persist in going ownerless.  That's deemed
to be contrary to public policy.

There's a large body of caselaw about people's heirs and creditors
gaining access to someone's property.

It's highly likely that not one of these cases has ever concerned a
piece of software that someone purported to put into the public domain
through an act of will.  For one thing, it's really rare for lawsuits to
happen just over theoretical questions, both because litigation costs
real money and because judges are really good at sniffing out cases
brought merely to prove a point and tend to dismiss them on various
procedural grounds.

However, the applicability and general shape of property law, especially
to copyright property, is pretty darned clear by seeing what happens in
analogous cases to tangible property.  E.g., if a future judge happens to 
interpret your "public domain declaration" as your having abandoned your
property, there is a large, settled body of caselaw that will guide
him/her in deciding who gets ownership next -- and the answer isn't
going to be "nobody, not ever again", as your request asked.


And, anyway, you've just changed the subject:  _You_ said that I'd
claimed that a public domain declaration "wouldn't stand up".  My point
was that your claim is very vexing, as I said absolutely no such thing.
I very, very clearly said that the results would be uncertain.

So, please don't do that.


> For that matter, the BSD license would appear 
> to be one of the few software licenses that has actually stood 
> up, and it does have a copyright.

*sigh*   You had to go there.

GPLv2 has also been enforced in a number of cases, first in Germany and
then in US cases, in the latter instance (IIRC) through settlement on
plaintiff's terms as opposed to court judgement.  The licences almost
never come to court, and it's staggeringly improbable for them to go all
the way to court judgement, for a number of reasons including the
infringing party having _fewer_ rights to the covered work, rather than
more, if the licence is held to be invalid (because, then the previously
granted reserved rights revert to the copyright owner).  So, suing to
invalidate an open source licence is, at least in the general case,
simply an excellent way to shoot at one's own feet.


> >I said the outcome is difficult to predict
> 
> Right, and a prediction means it hasn't happened, nor does 
> anyone know what the outcome will be until that has happened.

So, you're _agreeing_ with me, now, that a "public domain declaration"
has legal uncertainties in achieving its goals, and that a simple
one-line permissive licence achieves the same substance without that
uncertainty.

If you agree, why are you still arguing?  Is this just my being punished
for something?  ;->


> >>I question though, why it would not be sufficient for someone to
> >>no longer take ownership?
> >
> >I'm afraid I don't understand the question.
> 
> I don't want anyone to own a piece of code, I want everyone to 
> own it.

(You actually probably mean "nobody", not "everyone".  Having everyone
own something would absolutely negate your other aims.)

I still don't understand your question, though.  Probably, the problem
lies in the phrase "no longer take ownership".  I don't know what that
means, and, to be blunt, suspect it's pretty much gibberish.


> I am not looking to evade any liability to avoid legal 
> responsibility, but I want the code to be open and free.

If you say you're will to accept legal liability for something you want
anyone to be able to use for anything, I'm willing to believe you -- but
I'm glad you're not my business partner, Alan.  ;->


> Is it not possible in the world we live in to have truly open 
> and free code?

I've answered this question several times.  You seem to dislike my
answer.  Sorry about that, but I'm unable to adjust reality as I best
know it to suit other people's wishes.  As Dread Pirate Roberts remarked
to Inigo Montoya, "Get used to disappointment".


> >Um, that sounds like a non-sequitur conclusion, to me.  If an analogy
> >would help, think about that 21' Victory slipping anchor and ramming
> >Larry Ellison's yacht, a week after you nailed a dated plaque to your
> >sloop's mast declaring that you wish that nobody henceforth is to ever
> >own the vessel.
> 
> That sounds like kharma to me! *wink* (hoping you still have 
> some humor;-)

Bubelah, if I weren't approaching this entire freakin' mailing list, and
for that matter the global Internet, with an utterly deadpan sense of
humour, I wouldn't be quoting D.J. Bernstein, Gamal Abdal Nasser, Thomas
Sowell, and V.I. Lenin in my .signature blocks, would I?


> But seriously, I am not trying to avoid legal responsibility, 
> but I am thinking more in lines that Larry cut my anchor chain 
> and claims I'm responsible. 

Sorry, chum:  Larry would be claiming that you (negligently) didn't set
your anchor properly -- and, sorry, the judge would _not_ dismiss his
case simply on grounds that you claim to have washed your feet of
ownership the previous Thursday.  Thus my point.