[svlug] Fedora or Ubuntu for novis

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Alan DuBoff (aland at softorchestra.com):

> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Rick Moen wrote:
> 
> >You'll see on my "public domain" licensing page a copy of my
> >correspondence with Prof. Larry Lessig, a couple of years back, about
> >CC's public domain dedication statement: He admitted that the concept
> >was problematic, and uncertain to achieve its intended effect, e.g.,
> >depending on the judge and/or jurisdiction.  At the time, he said (IIRC)
> >that he recommended to the webmaster that the page be considered for
> >removal (or rewrite or something), next time the site got revised -- but
> >then nothing happened.
> 
> Rick,
> 
> Isn't this going by the assumption that:
> 
> 1) A public domain license wouldn't stand up in a court of law.
> 
> 2) it is not sufficient for the owner of record to declare "I 
> wish to no longer be regarded as the owner of this property." 
> (taken from your web page)
> 
> Certainly, IANAL, but these are key assumptions it would seem, 
> no?

No, I didn't say that.  (Hoping not to sound plaintive, but did you
_read_ the page?  Also, how the hell did you arrive at the conclusion
that "uncertain to achieve its intended effect" means "wouldn't stand
up"?)

I said the outcome is difficult to predict, and may depend on the judge
and jurisdiction.  (As always, the particular facts of the case might
matter, too.)

o  The judge could find that you abandoned your property, and that
   someone else who came along and took charge of it has thereby 
   become the new owner.
o  The judge could find that your heirs or creditors still have a 
   claim to the property, even if you're no longer interested.
o  The judge could honour your intention.
o  The judge could find that the property's still entirely yours
   despite your wishes.


> 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.


> There is nobody forcing anyone to use the software, in the case of the
> NSA they disclaim and place a limitation on liability. Wouldn't that
> protect, and make their disclaim of ownership, valid?

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the relevance.  Either one or both of us is
confused.


> I realize that the U.S. Government is a special case, since any 
> works created by them can not have copyrights placed on it. That 
> in itself seems good to me. How would the U.S. Government be 
> treated any different in a court of law? 

Um, the US Federal government and its agencies are treated differently
in courts of law, e.g., as to otherwise copyrightable properties they
created, because the United States Code, the cumulative record of 219
years of Congressional statutes, says it must be.

It's possible that I am not correctly understanding _that_ question,
either.


> Even you admit that it is possible that a public domain 
> declaration could have no legal effect (not your exact words but 
> close).

Admit it?  I've been trying to explain that very concept to people, for
quite some time!

It's possible you meant "could _have_ [the intended] legal effect".  In
which case, yes, I definitely said that.

My point, though, is that a 1-line permissive licence achieves the
intended effect _without_ uncertainty (albeit with warranty exposure; 
shedding that exposure requires addition of line #2).


> Don mentioned to me previously that one reason the type of 
> license is invalid is due to parties trying to evade 
> product-liability lawsuites, but that shouldn't be the case, if 
> a disclaimer exists.

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.

Larry claims that your negligence caused a $200k hole in the side of his
ketch.  Do you think the judge is going to dismiss his lawsuit on
grounds that you ceased owning the vessel a week earlier?