General discussion about the SQLite embedded database.

Chad Whitacre | 25 May 19:39

[sqlite] philosophy behind public domain?

Hello,

I am interested in the reasoning behind SQLite's dedication to the
public domain vis-a-vis other copyright/licensing options (GPL, BSD,
etc.) Is there any documentation available on this decision?

Furthermore, are there any groups or websites advocating for dedications
of software to the public domain who could provide information in general?

Specifically, are there other major software packages that have been
dedicated to the public domain?

I'm trying to form an opinion on software copyright/licensing issues and
would appreciate any thoughts or leads. Thanks.

chad

Greg Miller | 27 May 07:36

Re: [sqlite] philosophy behind public domain?

*

Chad Whitacre wrote:

> I am interested in the reasoning behind SQLite's dedication to the
> public domain vis-a-vis other copyright/licensing options (GPL, BSD,
> etc.) Is there any documentation available on this decision?

It comes down to goals. If your goal is to give other people code to 
use, then BSDL or public domain would be the way to go. If your goal is 
to get other people to give you code, then GPL would be a better approach.

Also keep in mind that many users of SQLite are using it on server-side 
apps that aren't distributed to others and wouldn't be affected by the 
GPL distribution restrictions anyway.
--

-- 
http://www.velocityvector.com/ | http://glmiller.blogspot.com/
http://www.classic-games.com/  |
  Linux is UNIX for Windows users. BSD is UNIX for UNIX users.

D. Richard Hipp | 25 May 20:40

Re: [sqlite] philosophy behind public domain?

On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 13:39 -0400, Chad Whitacre wrote:
> I am interested in the reasoning behind SQLite's dedication to the
> public domain vis-a-vis other copyright/licensing options (GPL, BSD,
> etc.) Is there any documentation available on this decision?

GPL and LGPL are too restrictive for SQLite because applications
generally want to be able to statically link against SQLite without
inheriting the GPL license requirements.  BSD retains copyright in
technicality, but doesn't really retain any real rights - so what's
the point?  Public domain just seemed the easiest way to go.

> 
> Furthermore, are there any groups or websites advocating for dedications
> of software to the public domain who could provide information in general?
> 

http://www.creativecommons.org/
I'm sure you can find more on Google.

> Specifically, are there other major software packages that have been
> dedicated to the public domain?

http://freshmeat.net/browse/197/ lists 521 software projects that claim
to be "public domain", though many of them are misusing the term.  But
there are still many famous packages that are PD.  The first page lists
NTP and Expect in addition to SQLite.

See also http://libtomcrypt.org/

--

-- 
D. Richard Hipp <drh@...>

(Continue reading)

Florian Weimer | 26 May 14:07

Picon

Re: [sqlite] philosophy behind public domain?

* D. Richard Hipp:

*

> Public domain just seemed the easiest way to go.

It is, until you want to incorporate a contribution from someone who
can't give up his copyrught in a binding way.  How do you handle
contributions from Europe, especially Germany?  Or hasn't that
happened yet?

Andreas Rottmann | 3 Jun 21:01

Picon

Picon

[sqlite] Re: philosophy behind public domain?

*

Florian Weimer <fw@...> writes:

> * D. Richard Hipp:
>
>> Public domain just seemed the easiest way to go.
>
> It is, until you want to incorporate a contribution from someone who
> can't give up his copyrught in a binding way.  How do you handle
> contributions from Europe, especially Germany?  Or hasn't that
> happened yet?
>
This is a point that always stroke me about "public domain": There is
no such thing as "disclaiming copyright" in Europe (or at least
Germany and Austria).

Rotty
--

-- 
Andreas Rottmann         | Rotty <at> ICQ      | 118634484 <at> ICQ | a.rottmann@...
http://yi.org/rotty      | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62
v2sw7MYChw5pr5OFma7u7Lw2m5g/l7Di6e6t5BSb7en6g3/5HZa2Xs6MSr1/2p7 hackerkey.com

Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it.  -- Donald E. Knuth

D. Richard Hipp | 5 Jun 01:07

Re: [sqlite] Re: philosophy behind public domain?

*

On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 21:01 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> There is
> no such thing as "disclaiming copyright" in Europe (or at least
> Germany and Austria).
> 
> Rotty

This would be a problem for any citizen of Germany or Austria
that wanted to contribute code to the SQLite project.  I cannot
see that this would ever be a problem for an SQLite users.

Can citizens of Germany and Austria assign their copyright interest
to third parties?  If so, then if you want to contribute code to
SQLite, just assign the copyright to me and I will then dedicate
the code to the public domain, which I can do since I am not a
citizen of Austria or Germany.  If citizens of Germany and Austria
are not allowed to assign copyright, then you will not be allowed
to contribute code to SQLite regardless of what license SQLite uses.
Either way, the fact that SQLite has been dedicated to the public
domain seems unimportant.
--

-- 
D. Richard Hipp <drh@...>

Florian Weimer | 5 Jun 21:01

Picon

Re: [sqlite] Re: philosophy behind public domain?

* D. Richard Hipp:

> This would be a problem for any citizen of Germany or Austria
> that wanted to contribute code to the SQLite project.  I cannot
> see that this would ever be a problem for an SQLite users.

Yes, of course.

> Can citizens of Germany and Austria assign their copyright interest
> to third parties?

The exploitation rights can be transferred.  These rights are the
important rights as far as software is concerned, but an author cannot
disclaim or transfer the non-commercial rights (being named as the
author, possiblity to prevent distortion and misrepresentation, and so
on).

> If so, then if you want to contribute code to SQLite, just assign
> the copyright to me and I will then dedicate the code to the public
> domain, which I can do since I am not a citizen of Austria or
> Germany.

The contributor can still exercise his or her right to be named as an
author, for example, so the result wouldn't be truly public domain.

D. Richard Hipp | 5 Jun 21:55

Re: [sqlite] Re: philosophy behind public domain?

*

On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 21:01 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Can citizens of Germany and Austria assign their copyright interest
> > to third parties?
> 
> The exploitation rights can be transferred.  These rights are the
> important rights as far as software is concerned, but an author cannot
> disclaim or transfer the non-commercial rights (being named as the
> author, possiblity to prevent distortion and misrepresentation, and so
> on).
> 

Moral rights have a much lower status in the US and do not really apply
here.  Canada specifically excludes software from moral rights.  That is
too say, in Canada moral rights apply to works of art and literature
but not to computer programs.  What is the situation in Europe?  Are
you sure that moral rights apply to software there?
--

-- 
D. Richard Hipp <drh@...>

Stefan Finzel | 5 Jun 12:15

Picon

Re: [sqlite] Re: philosophy behind public domain?


As a german citizen I'll try you explain my understanding of my 
countries law. The basic concept should be similar within central Europe 
(Austria, France, Italy, Spain ... but not Great Britain) as most 
countries laws evolved from the Roman law . Sorry i am not a lawyer, 
just a programmer concerned with this question while living from his 
work but also giving parts of this work back to the community.

We have two different parts. One is called  'Urheberrecht' (right of 
author) and the other "Entscheidungs-" and/or "Verwertungsrecht" (right 
to decide  of usage and right to use) .

First one just handles the mental ownership of  a piece of work. This 
can not be  given to another party.  In many cases this is worth nothing 
as is just bundles your name with your work. Very often this right is 
incorrectly translated as Copyright even in European countries.

Second one handles the commercial and economical aspects. Of cause this 
is something total different. If you get paid for your work,  you 
sometimes loose this rights  to your  customer or employer immediatly.
If you still have this rights by your own  you are able to  
give/license/sell them like  every material thing.

As I unterstand  the american way the customer or employer get the 
unrestricted usage rights under almost all circumstances. Additionally 
the author seems to have no right to be mentioned at all.

Do not worry in casse an author tells you he gives you the right to use, 
to decide how to use AND(!!!) the right to modify it. You have all 
neccessary rights, except to remove the authors name (if it was there

(Continue reading)

Eugene Wee | 5 Jun 14:41

Picon

Re: [sqlite] Re: philosophy behind public domain?

Hi,

Stefan Finzel wrote:
> 
> As a german citizen I'll try you explain my understanding of my 
> countries law. The basic concept should be similar within central Europe 
> (Austria, France, Italy, Spain ... but not Great Britain) as most 
> countries laws evolved from the Roman law .
hmm... but in the case of copyright, Germany is a signatory of the Berne 
convention (right?), and so shouldnt the basic aspects of copyright remain the same?

> First one just handles the mental ownership of  a piece of work. This 
> can not be  given to another party.  In many cases this is worth nothing 
> as is just bundles your name with your work.
This does differ from copyright somewhat, but apparently it is also covered in 
the Berne convention.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/moral%20rights

> Second one handles the commercial and economical aspects. Of cause this 
> is something total different. If you get paid for your work,  you 
> sometimes loose this rights  to your  customer or employer immediatly.
> If you still have this rights by your own  you are able to  
> give/license/sell them like  every material thing.
Would this not correspond to copyright?
The right to sell is (usually) covered by copyright.

> As I unterstand  the american way the customer or employer get the 
> unrestricted usage rights under almost all circumstances. Additionally 
> the author seems to have no right to be mentioned at all.
I'm not from the U.S., so my understanding may be skewed, but it seems that it 
depends on the license and/or contract.

> Do not worry in casse an author tells you he gives you the right to use, 
> to decide how to use AND(!!!) the right to modify it.
The thing is, the right to use is covered by patent law (which doesnt yet and 
hopefully never applies to software in Europe, methinks), while the right to 
modify is covered by copyright law. Both are not moral rights, from what I see.

> Once again note, in Germany the right to modify code does not include 
> removing the authors name.
That's because the right of attribution is a moral right.

> Now most germans seems to accept the common GPL and BSD like copyrights. 
> But I have problems understanding  many  restrictions/variatons of 
> proprietary copyrights and just do not accept and use them.
> In cases german citizens accepted a foreign license model ot contribute 
> software, it would be nearly impossible to involve a German court 
> whether for license nor for warranty aspects.
Yeah, there was a discussion on the differences in law in some European 
countries and the U.S. and similiar systems at the Open Source Initiative 
license discuss mailing list, but I wasnt paying attention :|

Eugene Wee

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice/opinion.

(Continue reading)

Lloyd Dupont | 5 Jun 12:30

Re: [sqlite] Re: philosophy behind public domain?

thanks all!

by the way, on the wiki page there was a link to an article which seems to 
confirm that ':memory:' is used as special filename to declare in memory 
database, indeed :)

Fred Williams | 5 Jun 06:26

Picon

RE: [sqlite] Re: philosophy behind public domain?

Much ado about nothing...

-----Original Message-----
From: D. Richard Hipp [mailto:drh@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 6:08 PM
To: sqlite-users@...
Subject: Re: [sqlite] Re: philosophy behind public domain?

On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 21:01 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
*

> There is
> no such thing as "disclaiming copyright" in Europe (or at least
> Germany and Austria).
> 
> Rotty

This would be a problem for any citizen of Germany or Austria
that wanted to contribute code to the SQLite project.  I cannot
see that this would ever be a problem for an SQLite users.

Can citizens of Germany and Austria assign their copyright interest
to third parties?  If so, then if you want to contribute code to
SQLite, just assign the copyright to me and I will then dedicate
the code to the public domain, which I can do since I am not a
citizen of Austria or Germany.  If citizens of Germany and Austria
are not allowed to assign copyright, then you will not be allowed
to contribute code to SQLite regardless of what license SQLite uses.
Either way, the fact that SQLite has been dedicated to the public
domain seems unimportant.
--

-- 
D. Richard Hipp <drh@...>

(Continue reading)

Eric Bohlman | 4 Jun 11:30

Picon

Re: [sqlite] Re: philosophy behind public domain?

*

Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> Florian Weimer <fw@...> writes:
> 
> 
>>* D. Richard Hipp:
>>
>>
>>>Public domain just seemed the easiest way to go.
>>
>>It is, until you want to incorporate a contribution from someone who
>>can't give up his copyrught in a binding way.  How do you handle
>>contributions from Europe, especially Germany?  Or hasn't that
>>happened yet?
>>
> 
> This is a point that always stroke me about "public domain": There is
> no such thing as "disclaiming copyright" in Europe (or at least
> Germany and Austria).

This is a rather sticky point.  It's unlikely that someone who 
unofficially "disclaimed copyright" would willingly change his mind 
afterwards, but that assumes ideal circumstances.  In the Real World, 
people sometimes die, get divorced, or get sued by people they owe money 
to.  It seems to me that if someone from a country that doesn't 
recognize voluntary relinquishment of copyright (and, AFAIK, that's most 
countries) contributes code to SQLite or something similar, his heirs, 
ex-spouse, or creditors could end up with a proprietary interest in part 
of the code.  Not good.

(Continue reading)

Clay Dowling | 5 Jun 00:54

Re: [sqlite] Re: philosophy behind public domain?

*

Eric Bohlman wrote:

> This is a rather sticky point.  It's unlikely that someone who 
> unofficially "disclaimed copyright" would willingly change his mind 
> afterwards, but that assumes ideal circumstances.  In the Real World, 
> people sometimes die, get divorced, or get sued by people they owe money 
> to.  It seems to me that if someone from a country that doesn't 
> recognize voluntary relinquishment of copyright (and, AFAIK, that's most 
> countries) contributes code to SQLite or something similar, his heirs, 
> ex-spouse, or creditors could end up with a proprietary interest in part 
> of the code.  Not good.

I think that maybe everyone is getting their nickers in a bunch over 
nothing here.  It seems a little paranoid to get worried because 
somebody is giving something away for free.  What's somebody going to 
sue for?  Lost earnings because they didn't get their share of royalties 
for the code their former spouse/ancestor wrote?  The code was written 
with the understanding that it would not generate any revenue.

Copyright on the code has been renounced in the U.S.  So somebody in 
Germany wants to sue Mr. Hipp because he can't renounce it there. 
That's really great, but German courts have very little ability to act 
against foreign citizens who are in another country.  The same applies 
to other courts in other countries.  You can get all the judgements 
against a foreign citizen you want in a Russian, Spanish or Chinese 
court.  So long as the citizen stays on their native soil there's 
blessed little that can be done about collecting on those judgements.

Before somebody chimes in about how it'll be your own company that gets 
sued for using the code, sit down and relax.  Unless you have very deep 
pockets, you're more likely to be struck by lightning than to be a 
target of such a suit.  There's no point in going after somebody who'll 
be bankrupted by fighting the case, since there'll be no money to 
collect.  That's the sort of thing that happens to Daimler-Chrysler or 
IBM, because they can afford to fight the case.  If your company is that 
size, you should be fretting the matter with your lawyers, not a mailing 
list.

My advice?  Stop fretting and get on with using this great little 
library.  There's a lot more profit in that than there is in worrying

(Continue reading)

Darren Duncan | 3 Jun 21:55

[sqlite] Re: philosophy behind public domain?

Considering everything brought forth here, can anyone think of a 
reason not to have SQLite officially released from now on under a 
permissive free software license like the modified BSD license or the 
very similar X11 license?  Aside from a bit of time to 
search-n-replace some text, what would we stand to lose from such an 
action? -- Darren Duncan

Eugene Wee | 4 Jun 08:12

Picon

Re: [sqlite] Re: philosophy behind public domain?

Well, since D. Richard Hipp would be the copyright holder if SQLite was 
licensed, that would be up to him, but he hasnt replied to the update yet.

If the licensing policy changes, probably the MIT license or (new/revised) BSD 
license would be good choices, though it seems to me (as a non-lawyer) that 
Larry Rosen's AFL would provide better protection against patent problems - but 
then whether or not it really would affect GPLed code is debatable, and that's 
not fun if you're just interested in coding.

Eugene Wee

Darren Duncan wrote:
*

> Considering everything brought forth here, can anyone think of a reason 
> not to have SQLite officially released from now on under a permissive 
> free software license like the modified BSD license or the very similar 
> X11 license?  Aside from a bit of time to search-n-replace some text, 
> what would we stand to lose from such an action? -- Darren Duncan
> 
>

Doug Henry | 25 May 21:27

Picon

Re: [sqlite] philosophy behind public domain?

I think you need to look at the goals of the licenses, and not focus on what 
is needed to comply, if your interested in why to choose one. The GPL is 
suggested (by GNU) if you have an open source product that is highly unique, 
because it will attract users and if used, will force more GPL'd software to 
be produced (insert snowball effect here). The LGPL is suggested (again by 
GNU) if you have a library that already exists in other domains (not highly 
unique), or you wish to allow for closed source usage. The LGPL ensures that 
your library cannot be used as a starting point for some really cool 
extension, without getting some benefit back. Basically your entitled to any 
changes someone makes to YOUR library. Not sure what the intent behind the 
BSD license was. Public domain is a gift to the world. If you don't care 
that someone might extend your product without giving you the changes, it it 
the easiest and most "consumer friendly" way of doing it.

On 5/25/05, D. Richard Hipp <drh@...> wrote:
*

> 
> On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 13:39 -0400, Chad Whitacre wrote:
> > I am interested in the reasoning behind SQLite's dedication to the
> > public domain vis-a-vis other copyright/licensing options (GPL, BSD,
> > etc.) Is there any documentation available on this decision?
> 
> GPL and LGPL are too restrictive for SQLite because applications
> generally want to be able to statically link against SQLite without
> inheriting the GPL license requirements. BSD retains copyright in
> technicality, but doesn't really retain any real rights - so what's
> the point? Public domain just seemed the easiest way to go.
> 
> >
> > Furthermore, are there any groups or websites advocating for dedications
> > of software to the public domain who could provide information in 
> general?
> >
> 
> http://www.creativecommons.org/
> I'm sure you can find more on Google.
> 
> > Specifically, are there other major software packages that have been
> > dedicated to the public domain?
> 
> http://freshmeat.net/browse/197/ lists 521 software projects that claim
> to be "public domain", though many of them are misusing the term. But
> there are still many famous packages that are PD. The first page lists
> NTP and Expect in addition to SQLite.
> 
> See also http://libtomcrypt.org/
> 
> --
> D. Richard Hipp <drh@...>
> 
>

(Continue reading)

Peter Lau | 25 May 21:44

Picon

Re: [sqlite] philosophy behind public domain?

*

On May 25, 2005, at 3:27 PM, Doug Henry wrote:

> I think you need to look at the goals of the licenses, and not focus 
> on what
> is needed to comply, if your interested in why to choose one. The GPL 
> is
> suggested (by GNU) if you have an open source product that is highly 
> unique,
> because it will attract users and if used, will force more GPL'd 
> software to
> be produced (insert snowball effect here). The LGPL is suggested 
> (again by
> GNU) if you have a library that already exists in other domains (not 
> highly
> unique), or you wish to allow for closed source usage. The LGPL 
> ensures that
> your library cannot be used as a starting point for some really cool
> extension, without getting some benefit back. Basically your entitled 
> to any
> changes someone makes to YOUR library. Not sure what the intent behind 
> the
> BSD license was. Public domain is a gift to the world. If you don't 
> care
> that someone might extend your product without giving you the changes, 
> it it
> the easiest and most "consumer friendly" way of doing it.

BSD license simply stated that you have to acknowledge the portion 
that's under the BSD license explicitly and put their copyright 
statement somewhere... and the BSD pieces are not responsible for 
anything... you can use it in any way you like... commercial or not... 
$$$ or not.

pete

(Continue reading)

Chad Whitacre | 25 May 21:04

Re: [sqlite] philosophy behind public domain?

Richard,

Thanks for the reply.

> GPL and LGPL are too restrictive for SQLite because applications
> generally want to be able to statically link against SQLite without
> inheriting the GPL license requirements.  BSD retains copyright in
> technicality, but doesn't really retain any real rights - so what's
> the point?  Public domain just seemed the easiest way to go.

So it sounds like the PD decision was mostly path-of-least-resistance, 
given the use case. Fair enough. Has this worked out well for SQLite? 
Would you recommend dedications to the public domain?

> http://www.creativecommons.org/

I'm not sure I would call them an "advocate" for the public domain, 
although they provide for dedications to it. I see them advocating for 
everything in between (pd) and (c).

> I'm sure you can find more on Google.

Ok, then I'm either searching wrong or there's nothing to find. 

I guess I'm casting about for a public domain equivalent of the FSF, so 
the latter is probably the case.

> http://freshmeat.net/browse/197/ lists 521 software projects that claim
> to be "public domain"  ...

Helpful pointers, thanks.

chad

(Continue reading)

Ulrik Petersen | 25 May 22:01

Re: [sqlite] philosophy behind public domain?


Chad Whitacre wrote:

>> http://www.creativecommons.org/
>
>
> I'm not sure I would call them an "advocate" for the public domain, 
> although they provide for dedications to it. I see them advocating for 
> everything in between (pd) and (c).

There is also the "Center for the Public Domain":

http://www.centerpd.org/

>
>
>> I'm sure you can find more on Google.
>
>
> Ok, then I'm either searching wrong or there's nothing to find. 

There is lots to find.  For starters, you can try these searches:

Lessig "Public Domain"
Lawrence Rosen "Public Domain"

Ulrik Petersen
I am not a lawyer.

(Continue reading)

Darren Duncan | 25 May 20:36

Re: [sqlite] philosophy behind public domain?

*

At 1:39 PM -0400 5/25/05, Chad Whitacre wrote:
>I am interested in the reasoning behind SQLite's dedication to the
>public domain vis-a-vis other copyright/licensing options (GPL, BSD,
>etc.) Is there any documentation available on this decision?
>
>I'm trying to form an opinion on software copyright/licensing issues and
>would appreciate any thoughts or leads. Thanks.

I'm wondering the same thing.

Moreover, in a discussion about open source software licenses I was 
part of a few weeks ago, it was brought up that making a work public 
domain was a very bad thing to do, because it opened up the author to 
a whole bunch of legal liability that they had no recourse from, 
which they wouldn't have if they retained their copyright but used a 
permissive license.  I think the gist was that the software couldn't 
have a disclaimer of liability if it is public domain, and so anyone 
could sue the author if something went wrong when using it.  I don't 
know how true this is or not, but would like to see it addressed in 
the answer.

-- Darren Duncan

Henry Miller | 25 May 23:34

Re: [sqlite] philosophy behind public domain?

On 5/25/2005 at 11:36 Darren Duncan wrote:

*

>Moreover, in a discussion about open source software licenses I was 
>part of a few weeks ago, it was brought up that making a work public 
>domain was a very bad thing to do, because it opened up the author to 
>a whole bunch of legal liability that they had no recourse from, 
>which they wouldn't have if they retained their copyright but used a 
>permissive license.  I think the gist was that the software couldn't 
>have a disclaimer of liability if it is public domain, and so anyone 
>could sue the author if something went wrong when using it.  I don't 
>know how true this is or not, but would like to see it addressed in 
>the answer.

Courts can hold any part of a contract valid they want to.   Courts
have struck down disclaimers of liability in several cases,
particularly in cases where the product causes loss of life and the
licenser (creator) should have known it could happen.  If you die
bungee jumping and it is discovered the rope was beyond the rated end
of life the disclaimer of liability will not protect them.  If the rope
was new it would protect them.   (See a lawyer for how this applies to
your case)

Generally you liability is limited based on what was paid.   If you pay
a lot of money for something the court is likely to conclude that you
expected that value from it.  When you get something from the public
domain the courts are likely to conclude that you got what you paid for
- in fact you could be liable for using public domain software that
fails, instead of the creator of the software.

Only a court can say what will happen, and then only after examining
the case.  Only a lawyer can give you specific advice.

(Continue reading)

Will Leshner | 25 May 20:43

Re: [sqlite] philosophy behind public domain?


On May 25, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:

*

> I think the gist was that the software couldn't have a disclaimer  
> of liability if it is public domain, and so anyone could sue the  
> author if something went wrong when using it.  I don't know how  
> true this is or not, but would like to see it addressed in the answer.

I believe I have heard something like that as well.

D. Richard Hipp | 25 May 20:43

Re: [sqlite] philosophy behind public domain?

*

On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 11:43 -0700, Will Leshner wrote:
> On May 25, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> 
> > I think the gist was that the software couldn't have a disclaimer  
> > of liability if it is public domain, and so anyone could sue the  
> > author if something went wrong when using it.  I don't know how  
> > true this is or not, but would like to see it addressed in the answer.
> 
> I believe I have heard something like that as well.
> 

Sounds like a folk legend to me.
--

-- 
D. Richard Hipp <drh@...>

Kurt Welgehausen | 25 May 22:14

Re: [sqlite] philosophy behind public domain?

*

> > > I think the gist was that the software couldn't have a disclaimer  
> > > of liability if it is public domain, and so anyone could sue the  
> > > author if something went wrong when using it.  I don't know how  
> > > true this is or not, but would like to see it addressed in the answer.
> > 
> > I believe I have heard something like that as well.
> > 
>
> Sounds like a folk legend to me.

The idea is that there's no quid pro quo, and therefore
no contract, when you place something in the public
domain. If you have a license, you can require the user
to accept the software as-is in return your letting him
use it, and by using the software he implicitly accepts
the terms of the contract. Some lawyers apparently think
that using PD software does not imply acceptance of any
attached disclaimer. This was discussed briefly in an
article on licenses in Linux Journal some months ago.

On the other hand, I've never heard of any problem in
this regard. The Icon programming language (which is
under appreciated and under used) has been in the public
domain for 20 or 30 years, and I don't think they've
ever had such a problem, in spite of a buggy release or
two.

Regards

(Continue reading)

Will Leshner | 25 May 20:56

Re: [sqlite] philosophy behind public domain?


On May 25, 2005, at 11:43 AM, D. Richard Hipp wrote:

*

> Sounds like a folk legend to me

Most likely :)

Return

Return to gmane.comp.db.sqlite.general.

Advertisement

Project Web Page

General discussion about the SQLite embedded database.

Search Archive

Language

Change language

Options

Current view: All messages / Showing only 20 lines / Hiding cited text.
Change to Threads only, whole messages, or show cited text.

Post a message
NNTP Newsgroup
Classic Gmane web interface
XML

XML

RSS Feed
List Information

About Gmane