📅 Original date posted:2016-10-16 📝 Original message:On Saturday, 15 October ...

Tom Zander [ARCHIVE] /

npub1mju…xnq7

2023-06-07 17:53:58

in reply to nevent1q…88t5

📅 Original date posted:2016-10-16
📝 Original message:On Saturday, 15 October 2016 17:02:30 CEST Marco Falke wrote:
> >> BIP 2 does not forbid you to release your work under PD in
> >> legislations where this is possible
> >
> > It does, actually.
>
> Huh, I can't find it in the text I read. The text mentions "not
> acceptable", but I don't read that as "forbidden".

You suggest that a person can dual license something under both CC-BY-SA as
well as under public domain.
That means you don't understand copyright,

See, all licenses are based on you having copyright. In contrast; public
domain is not a license, it means a certain text does not have copyright.
Public domain is the lack of copyright.

One text can not at the same time have copyright and not have copyright,
making your assumption impossible.

Hence, with PD not explicitly being allowed, you can't use PD.

Personally I prefer copyleft licenses, so the lack of PD is fine with me. The
lack of a good copyleft we can use in BIPs is what got me involved in this
discussion in the first place.
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel

Author Public Key

npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7

Seen on

wss://relay.nostr.band

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 17:53:58

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "0de287e92393476c58844dfd4a4511988c14008916e53e795e1502df98e48b8d", "pubkey": "dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7", "created_at": 1686160438, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "e63cd4ea4ab6e0a5e3f2408def1b797bf5f825b5cac36837367ba8a1c7e449ac", "", "root" ], [ "e", "30382115f90a61b2a66c4ae3924837c173117b1857c6686c07cb8e1c99d9d0e6", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "04038841fa1dffefb87710e6ca5bcef647155d764360a6d1e77ab28e7646a869" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-10-16\n📝 Original message:On Saturday, 15 October 2016 17:02:30 CEST Marco Falke wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e BIP 2 does not forbid you to release your work under PD in\n\u003e \u003e\u003e legislations where this is possible\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e It does, actually.\n\u003e \n\u003e Huh, I can't find it in the text I read. The text mentions \"not\n\u003e acceptable\", but I don't read that as \"forbidden\".\n\nYou suggest that a person can dual license something under both CC-BY-SA as \nwell as under public domain.\nThat means you don't understand copyright,\n\nSee, all licenses are based on you having copyright. In contrast; public \ndomain is not a license, it means a certain text does not have copyright. \nPublic domain is the lack of copyright.\n\nOne text can not at the same time have copyright and not have copyright, \nmaking your assumption impossible.\n\nHence, with PD not explicitly being allowed, you can't use PD.\n\nPersonally I prefer copyleft licenses, so the lack of PD is fine with me. The \nlack of a good copyleft we can use in BIPs is what got me involved in this \ndiscussion in the first place.\n-- \nTom Zander\nBlog: https://zander.github.io\nVlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel", "sig": "e9038726ef0bc9285ffcdc78abee1a8e5b86362bdb052c39165560919ba3c43f1c6b38e56cfb4d663b37bc76fa95daf40a40e3457bf1060ba8f9d735357cf007" }