[License-discuss] [License-review] CC0 incompliant with OSD on patents, [was: MXM compared to CC0 ]
rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Mar 8 23:27:31 UTC 2012
[Moving this back over to license-discuss where it _still_ belongs,
Quoting Lawrence Rosen (lrosen at rosenlaw.com):
> [paring the distribution list]
Previously CC'd to Basingstoke and back, I wouldn't doubt.
> Thank you, Alexander, for a clear rejoinder to my essay arguing that the
> public domain is not effective. The case you referenced in your email,
> Hampton v. Paramount Pictures, 279 F.2d 100 (9th Cir. Cal. 1960), stands for
> the proposition that, at least in the Ninth Circuit, a person can indeed
> abandon his copyrights (counter to what I wrote in my article) -- but it
> takes the equivalent of a manifest license to do so. :-)
The Terekhov person was quoting Prof. Bernstein? ;-> How very droll.
Bernstein is of course one of the primary people propagating the
aforementioned hapless confusion between property abandonment and public
domain. I made a point of creating an entire section of my page about
PD-dedication attempts to clearing up confusion created by Dan's page --
and pointing out his non-sequitur arguments claiming that you
specifically were misinformed, attributing to you positions you don't
hold and never articulated, etc.
More information about the License-discuss