This topic is a little fuzzy. The first sentence suggests that if I write something its mine. Yet if I write a message to another file sharer that includes the data from some music its not mine? Then the next sentence discusses arresting people for sharing ideas? That's a little suspect isnt it? Sharing ideas is the basis for communication, collaboration, education and many if not most forms of social and cultural development. Public Domain means nothing to me, because my domain includes whatever has been shared.
This is half the problem. People aren't thinking about information properly. They think of capitalising for themselves and what they want to have happen to "their" information. But its not going to be that way, clearly. In the Information Age its private or public and the choice is yours and everyone elses, not the "owner". - ABliss
I laughed out loud at bit about people creating other licenses to piss off Stallman. I am still getting my head around what is best way forward with copyleft and projects I am involved with or have some influence over. But in meantime I am pushing copyleft for creative works which would otherwise but all rights reserved as default.
but on wiki I set up at http://ourmayday.org followed iA example and say PD.
The thing is in milieu I hang around in we treat most info as public domain anyway and it is now with increase enforcement of copyleft or understanding of restictions of default legal position, that considering promoting use of copyleft licenses or attribution to the public domain needs to be considered.
cheers, Space Bunny
I consider my entries to this Wiki to be PD. I would be very unimpressed if the guys at iA decided to request that all changes be made GPL. This poses a problem for collaborative works - what if some people prefer PD to GPL or vice versa? This is why the GPL is viral and imho a Bad Thing - it doesn't allow other contributors to choose their own copyright terms. -- Amw
- That isn't necesseraly a Bad Thing. It protects the author(s) code from beeing exploited. At least GPL doesn't allow itself to be exploited by propertiary software, like the BSD license does, for example the BSD TCP/IP stack got borrowed by Microsoft Windows while the source went from open to closed
- Any entry here, unless otherwise noted, is PD: "All content contributed is in the public domain except where otherwise noted. Fneep!" from Homepage -- dpi
moved from Public Domain for discussion:
You can't put your text into the public domain unless you are the government. You can never waive your morale rights. You can liberally license your text. Presumably you put the text into the public domain because you wanted the public to profit from it too.
- I have a hard time believing that. After all, why would only the government be allowed to behave as "public domain" is described? If we're talking Public Domain as a legal term and not as an ideal, that may be possible; I am not a lawyer and cannot say. But if I don't want to license my work (such as what I'm writing right now) I would say that's my business. Of course intellectual property was created to protect artists and inventors so they could make money of their efforts and, eventually, everyone's work will end up in the Public Domain but that doesn't mean the government is the only entity that decides this. If I want to skip the time that it would take (5-100 years depending on where you live and the IP laws of your land) I should be able to. Webfork
I agreed with a comment placed on the page and have moved the comment here:
- The compatibility problems would, of course, have been easy to avoid if people wouldn't think that Richard Stallman is a jackass and come up with alternative licenses to those of the GNU project just to piss him off ...
The point is definitely in the catagory of "opinion." Webfork