Re: public domain dedications proliferation
Russ Allbery
"J Lovejoy" <opensource@...> writes:
I should have been more clear on what I needed input on ASAP - whichI think it would be useful to understand the split between three classes of things that I suspect SPDX will want to treat differently: * A pure statement of public domain for the reasons spelled out in the copyright law of some country, such as "this is a work product of the United States government" or "the copyright on this work has expired" (while no software, strictly speaking, probaby falls into the latter category, data files within software projects may well do so). Those will probably have to be broken down by country for the reasons stated elsewhere in this thread. This is *not* for software where the author wrote something under copyright and then attempted to relinquish that copyright, but for things that fall within the public domain legal definition (or at least the available information accompanying the software asserts that it does). * Software placed in the public domain (or at least attempted) by the author without any other licensing statement. For example, the tz time zone database: "This database is in the public domain." * Software placed in the public domain with supporting legal wording as a fallback for jurisdictions where that concept may not be legally possible. For example, at one point the IETF suggested wording similar to this: The authors (on behalf of themselves and their employers) hereby relinquish any claim to any copyright that they may have in this work, whether granted under contract or by operation of law or international treaty, and hereby commit to the public, at large, that they shall not, at any time in the future, seek to enforce any copyright in this work against any person or entity, or prevent any person or entity from copying, publishing, distributing or creating derivative works of this work. There are numerous variations of this idea. Separating these seems important from a cataloging standpoint. In particular, I would argue that statements of the third form *are a license* and should be tracked like any other license, because the wording of the fallback provision may matter in some jurisdictions and should be identified and merged using all the normal SPDX license tracking infrastructure. -- Russ Allbery (eagle@...) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> |
|