Hi,
I noticed this on the Edit page on mediawiki.org:
* Pages in the Help: namespace all have a thick blue border around them, indicating that their content is released into the public domain. Do not make edits to these pages unless you are comfortable releasing your contributions under this license.
There are far too many misconceptions about copyright and public domain in circulation already, MediaWiki shouldn't spread them even further. Public domain is not a license. Please correct this as soon as possible.
Timwi
"Timwi" timwi@gmx.net wrote in message news:ejcvgk$mer$1@sea.gmane.org...
Hi,
I noticed this on the Edit page on mediawiki.org:
* Pages in the Help: namespace all have a thick blue border around them, indicating that their content is released into the public domain. Do not make edits to these pages unless you are comfortable releasing your contributions under this license.There are far too many misconceptions about copyright and public domain in circulation already, MediaWiki shouldn't spread them even further. Public domain is not a license. Please correct this as soon as possible.
Soon enough for ya? :-)
http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning&di... 8510&oldid=25463
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
Mark Clements wrote:
"Timwi" wrote:
Public domain is not a license. Please correct this as soon as possible.
Soon enough for ya? :-)
http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning&di... 8510&oldid=25463
Yep, thanks a lot :)
Of course, I would have fixed it myself, but... you know! MediaWiki namespace and stuff ;-)
"Timwi" timwi@gmx.net wrote in message news:ejd33a$3p4$1@sea.gmane.org...
Mark Clements wrote:
"Timwi" wrote:
Public domain is not a license. Please correct this as soon as possible.
Soon enough for ya? :-)
http://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning&di...
8510&oldid=25463
Yep, thanks a lot :)
Of course, I would have fixed it myself, but... you know! MediaWiki namespace and stuff ;-)
Yeah - we don't let any old so-and-so edit those messages. Even such a prominent so-and-so as yourself :-) **
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
** irony
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 05:47:58PM +0000, Timwi wrote:
Public domain is not a license. Please correct this as soon as possible.
No, but it *is* still possible to dedicate original material to the public domain, is it not?
Cheers, -- jra
On 11/14/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
No, but it *is* still possible to dedicate original material to the public domain, is it not?
Maybe. The courts haven't tested it. In law, "public domain" is where stuff goes when its copyright expires, and under some other circumstances; nothing explicitly says you can put stuff there. Thus in proper legalese, you normally say something closer to "I grant an irrevocable, unconditional, duty-free license to everyone in the world to use, modify, redistribute, and otherwise do whatever they want with my work."
Or something to that effect. I may have confused some of the details a bit. The issue is discussed on [[public domain]], I think.
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:54:16PM -0500, Simetrical wrote:
On 11/14/06, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
No, but it *is* still possible to dedicate original material to the public domain, is it not?
Maybe. The courts haven't tested it. In law, "public domain" is where stuff goes when its copyright expires, and under some other circumstances; nothing explicitly says you can put stuff there. Thus in proper legalese, you normally say something closer to "I grant an irrevocable, unconditional, duty-free license to everyone in the world to use, modify, redistribute, and otherwise do whatever they want with my work."
Or something to that effect. I may have confused some of the details a bit. The issue is discussed on [[public domain]], I think.
It is, where it says:
It is commonly believed by non-lawyers that it is impossible to put a work into the public domain. Although copyright law generally does not provide any statutory means to "abandon" copyright so that a work can enter the public domain, this does not mean that it is impossible or even difficult, only that the law is somewhat unclear. Congress may not have felt it necessary to codify this part of the law, because abandoning property (like a tract of land) to the public domain has traditionally been a matter of judge-made law, rather than statute. (Alternatively, because copyright has traditionally been seen as a valuable right, one which required registration to achieve, it would not have made sense to contemplate someone abandoning it in 1976 and 1988.)
which hews pretty closely to what you assert.
But you're correct; the appropriate CC license has the same or better effect, and is clear, legally.
Cheers, -- jra
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 05:47:58PM +0000, Timwi wrote:
Public domain is not a license. Please correct this as soon as possible.
No, but it *is* still possible to dedicate original material to the public domain, is it not?
Cheers, -- jra
Hoi, Not necessarily so. I was told that in the Netherlands it is not even possible to irrevocably license something. Thanks, GerardM
On 11/15/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Not necessarily so. I was told that in the Netherlands it is not even possible to irrevocably license something.
Yeah, that's probably true in a whole bunch of jurisdictions. "Moral rights" (which generally don't exist in common-law jurisdictions but do in civil-law ones) are typically impossible to sign away. And then maybe in some jurisdictions you have provisions like you have in US contract law, where you can't give away something for nothing . . . my impression is that that's not applicable under US *license* law, which for some reason is different, but I don't know if that's true everywhere.
Anyway, the courts have upheld the GPL in the US, but I wouldn't be surprised if sometime soon it's struck down someplace in Europe or wherever. So it goes.
Simetrical wrote:
On 11/15/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Not necessarily so. I was told that in the Netherlands it is not even possible to irrevocably license something.
Yeah, that's probably true in a whole bunch of jurisdictions. "Moral rights" (which generally don't exist in common-law jurisdictions but do in civil-law ones) are typically impossible to sign away. And then maybe in some jurisdictions you have provisions like you have in US contract law, where you can't give away something for nothing . . . my impression is that that's not applicable under US *license* law, which for some reason is different, but I don't know if that's true everywhere.
Anyway, the courts have upheld the GPL in the US, but I wouldn't be surprised if sometime soon it's struck down someplace in Europe or wherever. So it goes.
Hoi, The GPL has been upheld in Germany too. The issues were all where a second party infringed on the rights under the license. This is different from the GPL or GFDL license for that matter being withdrawn by the copyright holder.
I hope we will never get to see such a sorry affair in court. Thanks, GerardM
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org