[bugsy]

He's right that GPL is draconian and limits freedom. But I am not sure your point because you didn't state it. You have a drive by post where you post some cryptic excerpt that seems unrelated to the topic with no commentary. Are you a posting bot, or are you a person with a point? Speak clearly. Explain yourself.

If the intent is to be critical of notch, I can't see any fault in his saying he hopes to release source code eventually and that since the GPL is such an anti-freedom license (huh, actually my words not his, but my sincere interpretation and agreement with his 'draconian' term usage), he "might just possibly" release as public domain, which means completely unencumbered and free. That sounds pretty cool. He's not under any obligation to do so though, and I don't see that many other games sold on Steam are somehow better.

Or perhaps you meant to indicate that you think his true reason not to release on Steam is not what he said, but he is lying and the secret real reason is that he intends to release public domain, and for some reason Steam would not allow that after signing their draconian and freedom limiting contracts, that are as freedom limiting as the GPL.

Maybe. Don't know because your post was incoherent.

[dkersten]

I agree with everything you said, except for the following:

release as public domain, which means completely unencumbered and free

In general, this is true, but some countries do not have a concept of public domain and so releasing it into the public domain would make it completely unusable to people in those countries. Personally, I would prefer either the BSD or MIT license or something like the WTFPL[1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

[georgemcbay]

Re: people in countries without public domain... is that a real actual problem that actually impacts people?

I mean, suppose a user in Nopublicdomainistan uses some software that is released in the public domain... clearly the author is never going to come after them for a copyright violation, even if their local government doesn't recognize public domain as a concept, so what is the actual real world problem they face in this situation?

I just don't see this as being a real problem.

[thristian]

IANAL, but:

I don't know of any countries that do not recognise public domain as a concept, but there are many countries (including the USA) whose copyright laws have no provision for an author 'giving up' their copyright. Just saying "I release this into the public domain" does not necessarily do that, any more than walking away from a house you own means you no longer own it. That means that if somebody says "I release this into the public domain", there's no reason why they couldn't change their mind and sue you for infringing their copyright later.

For more information, see this FAQ on public domain: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.ht...

Also note that Creative Commons has a special "Creative Commons Zero" license designed to provide the same results as "I release this into the public domain" in all jurisdictions, and it takes at least a page of legalese to do so: http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/

TL;DR: saying "I release this into the public domain" probably doesn't do anything; just slap a BSD, MIT or ISC license on the work instead.

[nuclear_eclipse]

I think it's seen more as a problem for a) software with multiple contributors, and b) corporations that want to use open-source software. When there's no legally-recognized guarantee of rights to users of the software, you have to implicitly trust that the original creator will not change their mind and sue you later. In cases with multiple contributors, it adds that many more unknown entities with the ability to litigate. By releasing the software under a permissive license such as MIT or BSD, or even CC0, the legal wording is there to help guarantee your rights to use the software in the face of lawsuits.

[rmc]

"Ah sure, us using this software is technically illegal, but sure, the original author isn't going to come after us" is usually not a good line to write on your corporate "do we have enough licences audit"

The problem isn't that your might get sued, it's that you can't convince $POINTY_HAIRED_BOSS that you won't get sued.

[georgemcbay]

YMMV, I guess, depending upon where you work/have worked but despite working in commercial software, I've had a bigger problem convincing past bosses that using pirated software to do our jobs is a problem than I have had with bosses who were overly concerned about copyright law to the point where it would be an issue in my hypothetical case.

I still think the original objection is more retold fairy tale than truth, but if anyone wants to prove me wrong they can point me to a country where public domain isn't recognized, but random user-written OSS licenses are and the country has any sort of culture of respecting copyright in the first place.

[fhars]

There is almost no country in the world where a work by an author that is alive or has died less than seventy years ago can be in the public domain. So releasing code as "public domain" more or less limits the release to the US.

[leon_]

> Nopublicdomainistan

Anyone said Germany? The concept of the "Urheberrecht" which many people falsly translate to copyright (it's more of a creator-right) is that you can not relinquish it in Germany. It's kinda like your mother can not "un-mother" herself from you ;)

That's why there's no real Public Domain in its purest form possible in Germany.

> clearly the author is never going to come after them. so what is the actual real world problem they face in this situation

The real problem is: A lack of legal certainty. You can not use PD in any bigger project if it is _possible_ that the original author might come after you.

[Schmidt]

In Sweden for example, you can't release something into the public domain.

There is also another problem, you can't disclaim some warranties for customers. So if you could release the software into the public domain, you could still be held accountable for what the software did after being modified.

[rufibarbatus]

Due to its language, I'm not sure the WTFPL would hold in court in just about any country. I don't mean just the profanity: it has no proper scope (i.e. it doesn't describe what's being licensed), it doesn't attach it to a proper author or maintainer (which, it turns out, may be a requirement in countries where intellectual property is described in terms of author's rights rather than copyright), and it doesn't specify what kinds of rights, warranties and whatnot the license waives the author/maintainer from.

</nitpicking>

[ceejayoz]

> In general, this is true, but some countries do not have a concept of public domain and so releasing it into the public domain would make it completely unusable to people in those countries.

I've heard this in the past. Functionally, what's the issue with this? The person who placed it into the public domain seems unlikely to sue in a country that doesn't recognize the public domain status.

[seanalltogether]

Maybe it's possible that some entity within that country could pick up the code, slap their own copyright on it, and claim to now own the code? Probably a long stretch but maybe that's the case.

[sukuriant]

Could we get a lawyer from one of those countries in here to answer this? I'm curious of the answer, as well.

[thristian]

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the issue is not 'countries that don't recognise the public domain', but rather 'countries that do not allow authors to donate their works to the public domain', which includes the USA (since 1978):

http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.ht...

[atomicdog]

>GPL is draconian and limits freedom.

How? Isn't the basis of GPL simply "Use this code however you want providing you make the source code you derive from it freely availble, too"?

[Pyrodogg]

For exactly the reason you pointed out.

The GPL guarantees that the code will forever be open due to the requirement that derivative works are released open and under the GPL.

What this complete 'code availability' freedom limits is what you can do with the code. For example, people are perpetually free to get that source but, you aren't free to incorporate it into proprietary software.

One entities freedoms can be a limit to another's freedoms.

[streptomycin]

I was just amused that someone praised for being so civil and respectful and mature would make a needlessly incendiary comment about the GPL on their website. Particularly as religious debates about open source licenses are quite stereotypical of disrespectful, immature, uncivilized nerds.

[bugsy]

I'm surprised that you are so open that you are disrespectful, immature, and uncivilized, but thanks.

[streptomycin]

Thanks for your posts, which very clearly validate my point that the original quoted statement was flamebait :)

[wmobit]

Saying the GPL is draconian and limits freedom is like saying the 13th amendment limits freedom since it takes away your right to own slaves.

[psykotic]

That rhetorical stance you take is particularly irksome when someone is talking about giving away their own code. He isn't whining that library X isn't under the GPL/LGPL. He's saying that'd he'd rather just give away his code entirely with no legal strings attached whatsoever.

[wmobit]

Such is impossible under current copyright law

[psykotic]

Could you be more precise? Are you repeating the "it's impossible to voluntarily place a work in the public domain" canard? There are well-established precedents in the US and Europe for authors waiving copyright. See djb's FAQ: http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html. If you are really paranoid and want a wordy license written in legalese to the same effect, you could use CC0. There's a detailed FAQ here: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ. There's also the Unlicense patterned on SQLite's public domain declaration: http://ar.to/2010/01/dissecting-the-unlicense.

In short, if you agree with the philosophical and practical advantages of releasing your code into the public domain, there is no excuse not do so under the guise of legal FUD.

[bugsy]

The 13th amendment establishes the right of the state to own slaves.

Technically, according to the text of the 13th amendment, it formally and legally establishes as a constitutional right of the state to declare people slaves as "punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted", which has of course resulted in prison chain gangs and various corporations hiring prisoners for cheap compliant slave labor over the years, and in the demand for such slave labor and thus the motivation of the state to imprison as many people as possible.