[ktta]

>SQLite License. Warranty of title and perpetual right-to-use for the SQLite source code.

<from more info>

Obtaining A License To Use SQLite

Even though SQLite is in the public domain and does not require a license, some users want to obtain a license anyway. Some reasons for obtaining a license include:

    Your company desires warranty of title and/or indemnity against claims of copyright infringement.
    You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the public domain.
    You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the right of an author to dedicate their work to the public domain.
    You want to hold a tangible legal document as evidence that you have the legal right to use and distribute SQLite.
    Your legal department tells you that you have to purchase a license.

If you feel like you really need to purchase a license for SQLite, Hwaci, the company that employs all the developers of SQLite, will sell you one. All proceeds from the sale of SQLite licenses are used to fund continuing improvement and support of SQLite.

</from more info>

How is it possible that they can sell licenses to the code that was put into the public domain by other contributors?

A contributor must attach the following declaration[1] to contribute. So now their contributions are in public domain. Now in a place where the law doesn't recognize public domain, doesn't the code belong to the original authors? How can an unaffiliated company license it as if they wrote the code?

[1]: "The author or authors of this code dedicate any and all copyright interest in this code to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this code under copyright law."

[hnarn]

>How is it possible that they can sell licenses to the code that was put into the public domain by other contributors?

"Public domain" does not mean: this has to be free, nobody can ask for money.

"Public domain" means: noone has the right to stop anyone else from doing what they want.

The same is true for things like the Mona Lisa. You can snap a photo of it (that photo may or may not be copyrightable, depends on the country, meaning you may also "steal" someone elses photo if applicable), print posters and sell them. This is possible because the intellectual property is in the public domain. It doesn't mean you have to give your posters away for free. You can even charge people to look at your photo -- disregarding the fact that noone probably would pay.

[ktta]

My question was the assertion of the ability of granting licenses in a place which doesn't recognize public domain. If the place doesn't recognize public domain, then in that place, the copyright of the code contributed by a user is still the users. So where does the company get the authority to license it?

Couldn't the person who put in into public domain go to the country and sue them saying the company is licensing their code? How can the company defend itself? We all know how it should go but that might not be what actually might happen.

[hnarn]

>So where does the company get the authority to license it?

The company doesn't need any authority because anyone can "license" public domain software, just like I can sell you a star in the sky. It's a worthless piece of paper, its a gimmick and a way of making a donation to a cause you appreciate.

>Couldn't the person who put in into public domain go to the country and sue them saying the company is licensing their code?

Again, you're misunderstanding what public domain means. "The person" you mention has no right to sue anyone because the thing being discussed has been released into the public domain. Nobody owns it.

To illustrate: when you say (paraphrased); "The author could sue you for misusing what he/she put in the public domain" the logic doesn't hold, because if the author could to that it wouldn't be released into the public domain.

[SamReidHughes]

It's in the public domain. Of course they can sell it. So can you.

[mrweasel]

>How is it possible that they can sell licenses to the code that was put into the public domain by other contributors?

Because you're required to sign a piece of paper that says: Yes, I agree to place this code in the public domain, if you want to contribute a patch to SQLite. What you're paying Hipps company for, when you buy a license, is keep records that says that all code is in fact in the public domain.

[kijin]

Hwaci is a U.S. company, and the U.S. recognizes public domain. Therefore, no contributor can sue Hwaci in the U.S. for selling SQLite licenses.

[mcbits]

I guess the question is what prevents those contributors from suing the licensee (or even Hwaci) in the country that doesn't recognize public domain?

I assume we'll never find out because contributors obviously don't intend to sue anyone if they release their code to the public domain, but it's strange that a company would be comfortable buying a possibly illegitimate license when they're uncomfortable with a public domain declaration.

[kijin]

I guess most companies that buy from Hwaci are more concerned about long-term support than about this public domain thingy, and "yes, we obtained a license" is just another box they need to check. $6K to check a box is pocket change to these companies anyway.

Besides, most countries in the developed world have some notion of giving away one's copyright (not moral rights, which can't be given away) so it might not be as much of a problem.