Re: Re: Software Licensing Agreement - Public Domain dedication

If the work is in the public domain, it is in the public domain and I can use it and create derivative works from it as much as I like. And I can make as many subsequent versions of it as I want without anyone having any say in the matter. The owner of the new proprietary work has no basis to sue me for my making later works based on the public domain work.

If the point is the obvious one that I have more control by using a license than putting it in the public domain, I agree. But how is that a "risk" of putting it into the public domain or a "flaw" of doing so? If I want others to be able to create works based on my work without any restrictions, then where is the problem with public domain?

As to the point about there being no statutory mandated method to put something into the public domain-- so what? I guess I am just blind to the problem. If I put something into the public domain, it is there. If someone wants to use it, he or she can do so. If someone wants to put something into the public domain in a way that everyone knows it is in the public domain, then the copyright owner can include such a statement on every copy -- like one would do as if it were a license.

Where is the "risk" or the "flaw" in the dedication? Is there any law anywhere that would nullify that voluntary dedication even if the statute is silent on how to go about it?

If you want to control the development from your product, even to the point of just limiting what others can do with their derivative works, then dedicating it to the public domain is not the answer. But again, that is not a flaw with such a dedication. It is a choice about what you want.

Steve

On 2/7/06, Andrew SkinnerLopata <asl[_at_]callatg.com> wrote:
> Even assuming a dedication to the public domain is irrevocable, it does
> not resolve the other risks and flaws that a believe concern Mr. Rosen
> (please correct me if I'm wrong).
>
> One such risk is that once dedicated to the public domain a work (the
> original work "OW") is free to be chopped up, modified and used by
> whomever, and then locked up as a new copyrighted work with all rights
> reserved. Imagine the owner of the new proprietary work (PW) suing the
> dedicator for using a subsequently developed version of OW. As Mr.
> Noble pointed out there would likely be a successful estoppel defense in
> an infringment action, but being in such a defensive position is
> definitively a risk. Even if dedicator is not sued, others who use
> certain parts of OW may end up getting sued by the owner of PW. An open
> source license could help avoid these problems.
>

--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law