9 ms·

> But all software would be free by default, because all source would be in the public domain, and all reverse compilation of binaries would produce public doma

> But all software would be free by default, because all source would be in the public domain, and all reverse compilation of binaries would produce public domain code. I am not aware of any open-source license which tries to approximate the "there is no copyright" situation: - Such a license would not compulse you to publish the source code of any modification you make for it. - Such a license would allow you to distribute compiled programs only. - On the other hand, such a license must not restrict you to de-compile, modify or re-destribute any binaries built from the source code. - But any such derivate of such a binary or source code would have to stay under the same license (this is a different kind of virality than "normal" viral licenses).

brainwad 11d ago
CC0 is an explicit attempt to emulate public domain in license form, isn't it?
- aleph_minus_one 11d ago
  > CC0 is an explicit attempt to emulate public domain in license form, isn't it? Public domain is something different from an emulation of "there is no copyright": You can take public domain material to build some program binary: - In the current legal system, you can enforce restrictions on the usage of this binary, and can forbid redistribution, reverse-engineering, ... - In a "no copyright world", you cannot enforce such restrictions.
  - deleted 11d ago
    [deleted]
  - otterley 11d ago
    > In the current legal system, you can enforce restrictions on the usage of this binary [from a public domain source], and can forbid redistribution, reverse-engineering IAAL and am pretty familiar with U.S. copyright law, and am curious where support for this proposition in the law is found. Can you provide sources, please?
    - aleph_minus_one 11d ago
      I don't know the US law (I live in Germany), but the intuition is clear: 1. Take some CC0/public domain source code. 2. Build a binary out of it and sell licenses for your software. Case study: SQLite's source code is public domain. On the other hand, it is embedded in many commercial software products that are sold - and you are not allowed to reverse-engineer the software or redistribute binaries of it. This would be possible/allowed in a no-copyright world.
      - deleted 11d ago
        [deleted]

brainwad 11d ago

CC0 is an explicit attempt to emulate public domain in license form, isn't it?

aleph_minus_one 11d ago
> CC0 is an explicit attempt to emulate public domain in license form, isn't it? Public domain is something different from an emulation of "there is no copyright": You can take public domain material to build some program binary: - In the current legal system, you can enforce restrictions on the usage of this binary, and can forbid redistribution, reverse-engineering, ... - In a "no copyright world", you cannot enforce such restrictions.
- deleted 11d ago
  [deleted]
- otterley 11d ago
  > In the current legal system, you can enforce restrictions on the usage of this binary [from a public domain source], and can forbid redistribution, reverse-engineering IAAL and am pretty familiar with U.S. copyright law, and am curious where support for this proposition in the law is found. Can you provide sources, please?
  - aleph_minus_one 11d ago
    I don't know the US law (I live in Germany), but the intuition is clear: 1. Take some CC0/public domain source code. 2. Build a binary out of it and sell licenses for your software. Case study: SQLite's source code is public domain. On the other hand, it is embedded in many commercial software products that are sold - and you are not allowed to reverse-engineer the software or redistribute binaries of it. This would be possible/allowed in a no-copyright world.
    - deleted 11d ago
      [deleted]