Re: Copyright of console illustrations

Francesco Poli <[email protected]> Sun, 31 Aug 2025 13:22:44 +0200
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 12:23:48 +0200 Simon Josefsson wrote:

> Michael Lustfield <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 18:47:39 +0200
> > "Andrea Pappacoda" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>     License:   public-domain
> >
> > As a rule of thumb, nothing is actually public domain unless it's very old.
> > There are licenses that attempt to replicate public domain, but it is not
> > possible to simply state you release something into public domain--at least not
> > in EU or US.
> 
> Do you have any reference explaining that claim?
> 
> My perception is that there are frequent current publications of public
> domain content, including stuff from NIST based on this "license":
> 
> https://spdx.org/licenses/NIST-PD.html
> 
> Another example are DJB's libraries, for example lib25519:
> https://lib25519.cr.yp.to/license.html

My understanding is that this is a vexed question: the actual
possibility for an author to voluntarily place a work into the public
domain is controversial.

Some people [claim] that this is possible, one such person is, indeed,
DJB.

[claim]: <https://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html>

Other people point out that most (all?) copyright laws do not
explicitly describe a mechanism to do voluntarily place a work into the
public domain. It seems to me that the [Berne Convention] (which is
adopted by almost all countries of our planet) does not impose that
such a mechanism be present in the signatory-country copyright laws.

[Berne Convention]: <https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/283698>


My own understanding is that the Debian Project does not take a stand
on this vexed question.

Dedications to the public domains are considered either as effective
(hence the work is considered to actually be in the public domain) or
as all-permissive licenses (hence the work is considered to actually be
copyrighted, but released under the terms of a license that allows
anyone to do anything with the work).

Both interpretations seem to lead to a very similar result, from a
practical standpoint.


Please note that I am just a Debian Maintainer, not an officially
delegated spokesperson of the Debian Project or of the Debian FTP
Masters. I don't recall seeing any official position of the FTP Masters
on this topic, but, of course, I may have missed one...

-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)