Legal Team/Decisions/Dealing with Public Domain within SPDX Files - Revision history

Jlovejoy: Jlovejoy moved page Legal Team/Decisions/Dealing with Public Domain within SPDX Files (DRAFT) to Legal Team/Decisions/Dealing with Public Domain within SPDX Files

2013-05-21T16:32:06Z

Jlovejoy moved page Legal Team/Decisions/Dealing with Public Domain within SPDX Files (DRAFT) to Legal Team/Decisions/Dealing with Public Domain within SPDX Files

Jlovejoy at 19:35, 11 April 2013

2013-04-11T19:35:58Z

Jlovejoy at 16:59, 11 April 2013

2013-04-11T16:59:31Z

Jlovejoy at 16:59, 11 April 2013

2013-04-11T16:59:20Z

Jlovejoy at 16:58, 11 April 2013

2013-04-11T16:58:30Z

Jlovejoy at 16:58, 11 April 2013

2013-04-11T16:58:08Z

MartinMichlmayr: Convert to MediaWiki syntax

2013-03-05T17:59:00Z

Convert to MediaWiki syntax

Jlovejoy at 16:42, 28 February 2013

2013-02-28T16:42:03Z

Jlovejoy at 16:41, 28 February 2013

2013-02-28T16:41:28Z

Jlovejoy at 16:40, 28 February 2013

2013-02-28T16:40:55Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The SPDX Legal Team is asked from time to time to add a standard entry on the SPDX License List for content that claims to have been placed in the “Public Domain.”  We have concluded that such a blanket determination on this subject does not comport with the purpose or role of SPDX or the SPDX License List, for the following reasons:
+The SPDX Legal Team is asked from time to time to add a standard entry on the [http://spdx.org/licenses/ SPDX License List] for content that claims to have been placed in the “Public Domain.”  We have concluded that such a blanket determination on this subject does not comport with the purpose or role of SPDX or the SPDX License List, for the following reasons:
 # SPDX seeks to simply organize and communicate information, not make legal conclusions.  Any legal judgments required when dealing with open source – regarding ownership, infringement, compliance, breach, etc. – are necessarily left to individual users and their legal counsel.
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
-Due to the foregoing reasons, the SPDX Legal Team will continue to treat each unique “Public Domain dedication” in the same way as any license is treated in the standard.  We believe this is the safest, common assumption that can be made regarding this type of material.  Some commonly used “Public Domain dedications” have already been included in the SPDX License List (e.g., ANTLR, Sax, CC-0), and others may be added to the List using the Process for Requesting New Licenses be Added.  "Public Domain dedications" that are not on the SPDX License List will be treated as would a license not found on the SPDX License List via a license reference (see section __ of the Spec)/
+Due to the foregoing reasons, the SPDX Legal Team will continue to treat each unique “Public Domain dedication” in the same way as any license is treated in the standard.  We believe this is the safest, common assumption that can be made regarding this type of material.  Some commonly used “Public Domain dedications” have already been included in the SPDX License List (e.g., ANTLR, Sax, CC-0), and others may be added to the List using the Process for Requesting New Licenses be Added.  "Public Domain dedications" that are not on the SPDX License List will be treated as would a license not found on the SPDX License List via a license reference (see section 5, "Other Licensing Information Detected," of the Spec).
-−
-−
 ''last updated 11 April 2013''
 [[Category:Legal]]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 # SPDX seeks to simply organize and communicate information, not make legal conclusions.  Any legal judgments required when dealing with open source – regarding ownership, infringement, compliance, breach, etc. – are necessarily left to individual users and their legal counsel.
 # “Public Domain” is a concept distinct from copyright licensing; it generally means that the work no longer has any copyright protection or ownership, and therefore requires no license permission in order to use, copy, modify, distribute, perform, display, etc.  In the United States – and many jurisdictions – copyright protections attach automatically to creative works upon creation if they satisfy certain minimum criteria.  “Public Domain” would thus represent a significant change to the legal status of the work.
 # The rules around “Public Domain” often vary or are unspecified jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Adding to the confusion, some jurisdictions may not even recognize the concept of “Public Domain” (or similar).  As such, a license may nevertheless be required or implied in these cases.  Even in the U.S., there is no clear, officially-sanctioned procedure for affirmatively placing copyright-eligible works into the “Public Domain” aside from natural statutory expiration of copyright.  The bottom-line is, there are few if any objective, brightline rules for proactively placing copyright-eligible works into the Public Domain that we can broadly rely on.
 # As a result of this lack of uniformity, attempts to make Public Domain grants are at this time largely ad hoc, and vary widely in approach.  They range from simple statements (“this work is hereby placed in the Public Domain”) to extensive claims about signed affidavits from all contributors disclaiming ownership over their work.  More confusingly, some supposed “Public Domain” grants are actually worded like licenses, and appear to retain rights and grant permissions.  In other words, it is difficult for third parties and downstream recipients to really know if – and to what extent – such claims over the change in legal status of a work are valid, enforceable, revocable, etc., and making such determinations is largely a legal judgment call.
 # Having a generic identifier with no corresponding license text to match to places the burden on the SPDX user to make a legal interpretation to determine whether the software is indeed public domain. The goal of the SPDX License List is to avoid such interpretations, but to provide a list of vetted short identifiers and license text than can be definitively matched, whether by using the efficiency of automated processes (i.e. scanning tools, etc.) or human eyes.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 # SPDX seeks to simply organize and communicate information, not make legal conclusions.  Any legal judgments required when dealing with open source – regarding ownership, infringement, compliance, breach, etc. – are necessarily left to individual users and their legal counsel.
-#“Public Domain” is a concept distinct from copyright licensing; it generally means that the work no longer has any copyright protection or ownership, and therefore requires no license permission in order to use, copy, modify, distribute, perform, display, etc.  In the United States – and many jurisdictions – copyright protections attach automatically to creative works upon creation if they satisfy certain minimum criteria.  “Public Domain” would thus represent a significant change to the legal status of the work.
+# “Public Domain” is a concept distinct from copyright licensing; it generally means that the work no longer has any copyright protection or ownership, and therefore requires no license permission in order to use, copy, modify, distribute, perform, display, etc.  In the United States – and many jurisdictions – copyright protections attach automatically to creative works upon creation if they satisfy certain minimum criteria.  “Public Domain” would thus represent a significant change to the legal status of the work.
-#The rules around “Public Domain” often vary or are unspecified jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Adding to the confusion, some jurisdictions may not even recognize the concept of “Public Domain” (or similar).  As such, a license may nevertheless be required or implied in these cases.  Even in the U.S., there is no clear, officially-sanctioned procedure for affirmatively placing copyright-eligible works into the “Public Domain” aside from natural statutory expiration of copyright.  The bottom-line is, there are few if any objective, brightline rules for proactively placing copyright-eligible works into the Public Domain that we can broadly rely on.
+# The rules around “Public Domain” often vary or are unspecified jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Adding to the confusion, some jurisdictions may not even recognize the concept of “Public Domain” (or similar).  As such, a license may nevertheless be required or implied in these cases.  Even in the U.S., there is no clear, officially-sanctioned procedure for affirmatively placing copyright-eligible works into the “Public Domain” aside from natural statutory expiration of copyright.  The bottom-line is, there are few if any objective, brightline rules for proactively placing copyright-eligible works into the Public Domain that we can broadly rely on.
-#As a result of this lack of uniformity, attempts to make Public Domain grants are at this time largely ad hoc, and vary widely in approach.  They range from simple statements (“this work is hereby placed in the Public Domain”) to extensive claims about signed affidavits from all contributors disclaiming ownership over their work.  More confusingly, some supposed “Public Domain” grants are actually worded like licenses, and appear to retain rights and grant permissions.  In other words, it is difficult for third parties and downstream recipients to really know if – and to what extent – such claims over the change in legal status of a work are valid, enforceable, revocable, etc., and making such determinations is largely a legal judgment call.
+# As a result of this lack of uniformity, attempts to make Public Domain grants are at this time largely ad hoc, and vary widely in approach.  They range from simple statements (“this work is hereby placed in the Public Domain”) to extensive claims about signed affidavits from all contributors disclaiming ownership over their work.  More confusingly, some supposed “Public Domain” grants are actually worded like licenses, and appear to retain rights and grant permissions.  In other words, it is difficult for third parties and downstream recipients to really know if – and to what extent – such claims over the change in legal status of a work are valid, enforceable, revocable, etc., and making such determinations is largely a legal judgment call.
 # Having a generic identifier with no corresponding license text to match to places the burden on the SPDX user to make a legal interpretation to determine whether the software is indeed public domain. The goal of the SPDX License List is to avoid such interpretations, but to provide a list of vetted short identifiers and license text than can be definitively matched, whether by using the efficiency of automated processes (i.e. scanning tools, etc.) or human eyes.
 #Having a generic identifier with no corresponding license text to match to places the burden on the SPDX user to make a legal interpretation to determine whether the software is indeed public domain. The goal of the SPDX License List is to avoid such interpretations, but to provide a list of vetted short identifiers and license text than can be definitively matched, whether by using the efficiency of automated processes (i.e. scanning tools, etc.) or human eyes.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 # SPDX seeks to simply organize and communicate information, not make legal conclusions.  Any legal judgments required when dealing with open source – regarding ownership, infringement, compliance, breach, etc. – are necessarily left to individual users and their legal counsel.
-# “Public Domain” is a concept distinct from copyright licensing; it generally means that the work no longer has any copyright protection or ownership, and therefore requires no license permission in order to use, copy, modify, distribute, perform, display, etc.  In the United States – and many jurisdictions – copyright protections attach automatically to creative works upon creation if they satisfy certain minimum criteria.  “Public Domain” would thus represent a significant change to the legal status of the work.
+#“Public Domain” is a concept distinct from copyright licensing; it generally means that the work no longer has any copyright protection or ownership, and therefore requires no license permission in order to use, copy, modify, distribute, perform, display, etc.  In the United States – and many jurisdictions – copyright protections attach automatically to creative works upon creation if they satisfy certain minimum criteria.  “Public Domain” would thus represent a significant change to the legal status of the work.
-# The rules around “Public Domain” often vary or are unspecified jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Adding to the confusion, some jurisdictions may not even recognize the concept of “Public Domain” (or similar).  As such, a license may nevertheless be required or implied in these cases.  Even in the U.S., there is no clear, officially-sanctioned procedure for affirmatively placing copyright-eligible works into the “Public Domain” aside from natural statutory expiration of copyright.  The bottom-line is, there are few if any objective, brightline rules for proactively placing copyright-eligible works into the Public Domain that we can broadly rely on.
+#The rules around “Public Domain” often vary or are unspecified jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  Adding to the confusion, some jurisdictions may not even recognize the concept of “Public Domain” (or similar).  As such, a license may nevertheless be required or implied in these cases.  Even in the U.S., there is no clear, officially-sanctioned procedure for affirmatively placing copyright-eligible works into the “Public Domain” aside from natural statutory expiration of copyright.  The bottom-line is, there are few if any objective, brightline rules for proactively placing copyright-eligible works into the Public Domain that we can broadly rely on.
-# As a result of this lack of uniformity, attempts to make Public Domain grants are at this time largely ad hoc, and vary widely in approach.  They range from simple statements (“this work is hereby placed in the Public Domain”) to extensive claims about signed affidavits from all contributors disclaiming ownership over their work.  More confusingly, some supposed “Public Domain” grants are actually worded like licenses, and appear to retain rights and grant permissions.  In other words, it is difficult for third parties and downstream recipients to really know if – and to what extent – such claims over the change in legal status of a work are valid, enforceable, revocable, etc., and making such determinations is largely a legal judgment call.
+#As a result of this lack of uniformity, attempts to make Public Domain grants are at this time largely ad hoc, and vary widely in approach.  They range from simple statements (“this work is hereby placed in the Public Domain”) to extensive claims about signed affidavits from all contributors disclaiming ownership over their work.  More confusingly, some supposed “Public Domain” grants are actually worded like licenses, and appear to retain rights and grant permissions.  In other words, it is difficult for third parties and downstream recipients to really know if – and to what extent – such claims over the change in legal status of a work are valid, enforceable, revocable, etc., and making such determinations is largely a legal judgment call.
-# Having a generic identifier with no corresponding license text to match to places the burden on the SPDX user to make a legal interpretation to determine whether the software is indeed public domain. The goal of the SPDX License List is to avoid such interpretations, but to provide a list of vetted short identifiers and license text than can be definitively matched, whether by using the efficiency of automated processes (i.e. scanning tools, etc.) or human eyes.
+#Having a generic identifier with no corresponding license text to match to places the burden on the SPDX user to make a legal interpretation to determine whether the software is indeed public domain. The goal of the SPDX License List is to avoid such interpretations, but to provide a list of vetted short identifiers and license text than can be definitively matched, whether by using the efficiency of automated processes (i.e. scanning tools, etc.) or human eyes.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-On several occasions, it has been suggested to add a "public domain" short identifer to the SPDX License List, as this would allow a short and efficient way to identify software that has been released into the public domain. Upon discussion by the SPDX Legal Team, the idea of having a "generic" identifier for something that it released into the public domain was rejected. This would not be practical for a number of reasons and public domain dedications have already been handled like any other license.
+The SPDX Legal Team is asked from time to time to add a standard entry on the SPDX License List for content that claims to have been placed in the “Public Domain.”  We have concluded that such a blanket determination on this subject does not comport with the purpose or role of SPDX or the SPDX License List, for the following reasons:
-# The concept of public domain does not necessarily translate across jurisdictions and the conditions under which a work can be released to the public domain vary on an country-by-country basis. Thus, having a short identifier could potentially only introduce ambiguity as to what that short identifier precisely means. The goal of the SPDX License List is to increase accuracy, not ambiguity, when it comes to identifying how software has been licensed.
+# SPDX seeks to simply organize and communicate information, not make legal conclusions.  Any legal judgments required when dealing with open source – regarding ownership, infringement, compliance, breach, etc. – are necessarily left to individual users and their legal counsel.
-# Some public domain "dedications" are really licenses. That is, examples exist where the author calls it "public domain," yet the terms include conditions, thus making the terms resemble a license. If there was a generic public domain short identifier on the SPDX License List, this could result in an SPDX user identifying such a scenario using the short identifier, instead of capturing the actual text of the license, which would be incorrect.
-# By having a generic identifier with no corresponding license text to match to places the burden on the SPDX user to make a legal interpretation to determine whether the software is indeed public domain and therefore, warrants using the generic public domain identifier. The goal of the SPDX License List is to avoid such interpretations, but providing a list of vetted short identifiers and license text than can be definitively matched, including by using the efficiency of automated processes (i.e. scanning tools, etc.).
-# Commonly found public domain dedications have already been included on the SPDX License List (e.g., ANTLR, Sax, CC-0). Other public domain dedications or licenses that are not on the SPDX License List can be requested in the same way that any other license is requested to be added.
-# Where something is noted with a public domain dedication, it can be captured the same was as any (other) license. That is, if it is something is part of the SPDX License List, it will have a short identifier, full name and exact text match like the examples above, and if it is not on the SPDX License List, it can be captured the same way as any (other) license not on the list via a license reference.
-''last updated 28 February 2013''
+# “Public Domain” is a concept distinct from copyright licensing; it generally means that the work no longer has any copyright protection or ownership, and therefore requires no license permission in order to use, copy, modify, distribute, perform, display, etc.  In the United States – and many jurisdictions – copyright protections attach automatically to creative works upon creation if they satisfy certain minimum criteria.  “Public Domain” would thus represent a significant change to the legal status of the work.
 [[Category:Legal]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 16:32, 21 May 2013
(No difference)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<p>On several occasions, it has been suggested to add a "public domain" short identifer to the SPDX License List, as this would allow a short and efficient way to identify software that has been released into the public domain. Upon discussion by the SPDX Legal Team, the idea of having a "generic" identifier for something that it released into the public domain was rejected. This would not be practical for a number of reasons and public domain dedications have already been handled like any other license.</p>
+On several occasions, it has been suggested to add a "public domain" short identifer to the SPDX License List, as this would allow a short and efficient way to identify software that has been released into the public domain. Upon discussion by the SPDX Legal Team, the idea of having a "generic" identifier for something that it released into the public domain was rejected. This would not be practical for a number of reasons and public domain dedications have already been handled like any other license.
-<ol>
+# The concept of public domain does not necessarily translate across jurisdictions and the conditions under which a work can be released to the public domain vary on an country-by-country basis. Thus, having a short identifier could potentially only introduce ambiguity as to what that short identifier precisely means. The goal of the SPDX License List is to increase accuracy, not ambiguity, when it comes to identifying how software has been licensed.
-<li>The concept of public domain does not necessarily translate across jurisdictions and the conditions under which a work can be released to the public domain vary on an country-by-country basis. Thus, having a short identifier could potentially only introduce ambiguity as to what that short identifier precisely means. &nbsp;The goal of the SPDX License List is to increase accuracy, not ambiguity, when it comes to identifying how software has been licensed.</li>
+# Some public domain "dedications" are really licenses. That is, examples exist where the author calls it "public domain," yet the terms include conditions, thus making the terms resemble a license. If there was a generic public domain short identifier on the SPDX License List, this could result in an SPDX user identifying such a scenario using the short identifier, instead of capturing the actual text of the license, which would be incorrect.
-<li>Some public domain "dedications" are really licenses. &nbsp;That is, examples exist where the author calls it "public domain," yet the terms include conditions, thus making the terms resemble a license. &nbsp;If there was a generic public domain short identifier on the SPDX License List, this could result in an SPDX user identifying such a scenario using the short identifier, instead of capturing the actual text of the license, which would be incorrect.</li>
+''last updated 28 February 2013''
-<li style="margin: 0px 0px 5px;">By having a generic identifier with no corresponding license text to match to places the burden on the SPDX user to make a legal interpretation to determine whether the software is indeed public domain and therefore, warrants using the generic public domain identifier. &nbsp;The goal of the SPDX License List is to avoid such interpretations, but providing a list of vetted short identifiers and license text than can be definitively matched, including by using the efficiency of automated processes (i.e. scanning tools, etc.).</li>
+[[Category:Legal]]
-−
-<li style="margin: 0px 0px 5px;">Commonly found public domain dedications have already been included on the SPDX License List &nbsp;(e.g., ANTLR, Sax, CC-0). Other public domain dedications or licenses that are not on the SPDX License List can be requested in the same way that any other license is requested to be added.</li>
-−
-<li style="margin: 0px 0px 5px;">Where something is noted with a public domain dedication, it can be captured the same was as any (other) license. That is, if it is something is part of the SPDX License List, it will have a short identifier, full name and exact text match like the examples above, and if it is not on the SPDX License List, it can be captured the same way as any (other) license not on the list via a license reference.</li>
-</ol>
-<em>last updated 28 February 2013</em>

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:40, 28 February 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	<p>On several ~~ocassions~~, it has been suggested to add a "public domain" short identifer to the SPDX License List, as this would allow a short and efficient way to identify software that has been released into the public domain. Upon discussion by the SPDX Legal Team, the idea of having a "generic" identifier for something that it released into the public domain was rejected. This would not be practical for a number of reasons and public domain dedications have already been handled like any other license.</p>	+	<p>On several occasions, it has been suggested to add a "public domain" short identifer to the SPDX License List, as this would allow a short and efficient way to identify software that has been released into the public domain. Upon discussion by the SPDX Legal Team, the idea of having a "generic" identifier for something that it released into the public domain was rejected. This would not be practical for a number of reasons and public domain dedications have already been handled like any other license.</p>

	<ol style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">		<ol style="color: #4d4d4d; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">