31 Dec, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
I recently came across a discussion where someone objected to using my snippet because, they claimed, "public domain code … it's not legal in many jurisdictions".

That's the first I've ever heard of it, but after some hunting around I also came across a Wikipedia article which mentions that "It is controversial, however, whether it is possible for a copyright holder to truly abandon the copyright of their work", and discusses some of the issues and legal viewpoints.

The discussion page suggests using a template which states:

This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. This applies worldwide.

In case this is not legally possible:
The copyright holder grants any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
I'm thinking of adding the above text to my snippet. The reason I released my code into the public domain in the first place was because I didn't want people to be turned off by potential licence issues, so it's pretty irritating to have to jump through even more loops, but hopefully the above will be enough to satisfy all concerns. Hopefully.
31 Dec, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
31 Dec, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
You'd think all that would be implicit, but, eh, "legalese" right.
31 Dec, 2011, Runter wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
I've heard this before. I think it's a valid concern, although probably not ultimately a big deal. I think it's sort of fallen out of style to use this terminology anyways. Maybe that's because of the controversy. I personally release code for similar purpose under MIT (or other restriction free) licensing. It's usually enough for users to know that they can use software without restriction.
01 Jan, 2012, quixadhal wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Zathras can never have anything nice… because of lawyers.

*chuckle*

I agree. If "public domain" has been polluted by the legal nonsense our society uses these days, then using a clear license that says "You can use this however you wish" is the best way to go. I've always felt the minor restriction of admitting you didn't write it was more than fair, and really that's all holding a copyright that doesn't impose any other restrictions does.
01 Jan, 2012, Tyche wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Regardless, a license is only as valid as the author's word. (e.g. ILAB and ROM OLCS, SmaugFUSS, AFKMud)
So I don't see a problem with public domain, because an author could just as surely revoke that promise as with an explicit license.
02 Jan, 2012, Runter wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
Regardless, a license is only as valid as the author's word. (e.g. ILAB and ROM OLCS, SmaugFUSS, AFKMud)
So I don't see a problem with public domain, because an author could just as surely revoke that promise as with an explicit license.


That's probably the whole reason why the debate exists. At least in America, public domain is a special status that cannot be revoked. So the question as to whether or not you can truly place your own work into the public domain is a valid one even in jurisdictions where the definition exists. Because if you can, it's a promise you cannot break. Which is completely different from a license that says basically the same thing, as you've pointed out.
02 Jan, 2012, David Haley wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Yep. You can revoke a license (in principle, not necessarily always, bla bla bla) but you cannot revoke public domain, assuming you actually did public domain.
02 Jan, 2012, Hades_Kane wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Can you put in your license that the license to use freely cannot be revoked?
02 Jan, 2012, David Haley wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Sure, you can grant perpetual, irrevocable, etc., rights. You'd have to talk to a lawyer about how exactly that plays out, and what rights you can sign away. And of course it depends on the country, etc.
02 Jan, 2012, Runter wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
I think the real question, as you said, is which rights can you sign away? The answer is usually surprisingly not many. This is one of those parts (at least in american law) that is codified by case-law. It's not a broad brush.

For example, general waivers that employers often ask employees to sign are often completely invalid. It's valid to ask them to sign the waiver, but it's completely invalid in terms of being able to sign away the rights in the first place. There's many rights that just can't be signed or agreed away. And frankly, a license can claim and promise anything. It's not really a contract. So the barrier is even higher. I could say in my license, for example, that my software was made by leprechauns, and if you use my software I'll mail you a share of the pot of gold I found. You wouldn't have standing later to sue me after you find out that in fact my software wasn't made by leprechauns, and you received no gold coins in the mail.
03 Jan, 2012, Tyche wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
Can you put in your license that the license to use freely cannot be revoked?

I expect a promise to not revoke a license grant isn't worth much more than the original grant.
04 Jan, 2012, David Haley wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Of course it's different.

I grant you X <but have the right to take it away> is not the same as I grant you X forever even if I wish I changed my mind.
04 May, 2012, Kjwah wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Whoa, glad I caught this thread. I've been using public domain for years and have never heard of this until now.

Thanks.
04 May, 2012, Vigud wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
Can you put in your license that the license to use freely cannot be revoked?
Yes, Apache 2.0 is an example of such license.
0.0/15