On 2/7/06, Andrew SkinnerLopata <asl[_at_]callatg.com> wrote:
>
> Even if dedicator is not sued, others who use
> certain parts of OW may end up getting sued by the owner of PW.
What is left unmentioned is the risk that the owner of proprietary work will have. He may be in trouble for making fraudulent copyright claim in the proprietary work. Courts do not look too kind on the fraudulent copyright claim.
> An open
> source license could help avoid these problems.
The authors of the open source software are not always 100% honest. Don't let their open source license fool you into thinking that you can copy their software without any problem. That is one risk that you did not mention here.
For every risk, real or fictional, you raise for the public domain works, there seems to be a similar risk, real or fictional, with the open source licenses. The bottom line is from the perspective of risk, there is no immediate advantage that the public domain or copyright has over each other.
> As others here have argued, the scope of rights in a dedication to the
> public domain is not a simple question to answer. Especially when the
> rights have a constitutional basis, and there is no statutory method for
> making such a dedication.
The U.S. has very long legal history where almost all rights can be waived or disclaimed, regardless of whether the laws provide the means for it.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com>
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>
Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 4,708
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Fri Feb 10 2006 - 22:00:00 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:56 GMT