[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: public domain and licenses (was: Musicology with Lilypond)
From: |
Henning Hraban Ramm |
Subject: |
Re: public domain and licenses (was: Musicology with Lilypond) |
Date: |
Tue, 29 Oct 2019 21:54:44 +0100 |
> Am 2019-10-29 um 20:11 schrieb address@hidden:
>
> On 10/29, Urs Liska wrote:
>> Well, the LSR website explicitly states that it's contents is in the
>> public domain. If I read correctly your email this would have to be
>> considered illegal, especially given that many snippets there are
>> uploaded not by their original authors but by someone who uses the
>> results of a mailing list discussion
>
> Like Andrew B says, it would probably take an international copyright
> lawyer to really sort out the legal status of the LSR. Saying that
> something is public domain doesn't just make it so. My understanding is
> that unless the copyright has expired or the work has otherwise entered
> the public domain, all rights are exclusively reserved until the author
> gives up those right.
As I said before, in the US (and probably some other legislations) you can give
up copyright (i.e. your right of authorship) and put something into public
domain. And if a sharing site states that sharing puts the contents into public
domain, then that’s valid – for legislations where this is possible, assumed
the contributor had the rights at all.
(We had a few cases where list participants posted copyrighted material, and of
course they can’t put other people’s works into PD in any legislation.)
But you’re right that a juristically clarified and “waterproof” license like
CC0 would have been better and more reliable that stating “public domain”. And
we can’t just apply such a license to all the contents, all contributors and
original authors would need to agree.
Thus, I share your conclusion.
Maybe we can declare for LSR and for our mailing lists that everyone puts their
code under CC0 from now on, while older contents are still implicitely and
unintendedly copyrighted, as long as it’s not declared differently?
Greetlings, Hraban
---
fiëé visuëlle
Henning Hraban Ramm
https://www.fiee.net
- Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-), (continued)
- Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-), mason, 2019/10/28
- Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-), Klaus Blum, 2019/10/28
- Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-), mason, 2019/10/28
- Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-), Urs Liska, 2019/10/29
- Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)], Andrew Bernard, 2019/10/29
- Re: Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)], N. Andrew Walsh, 2019/10/29
- Re: Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)], Andrew Bernard, 2019/10/29
- Re: Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-)], Dick Seabrook, 2019/10/29
- Re: Copyright, was [Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ; -)], David Kastrup, 2019/10/29
- Re: Musicology with Lilypond (and now correct attachments ;-), mason, 2019/10/29
- Re: public domain and licenses (was: Musicology with Lilypond),
Henning Hraban Ramm <=