Anonymous user
Rosetta Code talk:Copyrights: Difference between revisions
→CC0 or Public domain
m (→Book: Picolisp by example derived from the site: minus in) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 85:
::I have seen it written that book authorship and where your work has been cited is currency in academia, reviewed in job applications and on promotion boards. In computing, job applicants are told that contributions to open source projects help their case. It would have been polite, when you can look at a page of the book and see a task description longer than the picolisp code and which could have taken more effort to put together than the code, it would have been polite if one had known it was coming.
::I have learned and derived pleasure from writing and modifying task descriptions as well as code. I think its good to see their improvement over time, and think they ''are'' of intrinsic value. I cannot say what individual task authors would think, but with so much of the book being RC stuff not written by the picolisp authors then I would think it was blindingly obvious to someone that has an account on the site enough to write all that picolisp, that discussing the use of such text on the site would be a good idea. But they don't have to, and have (still) chosen not to do that. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 04:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
== CC0 or Public domain ==
I've just added a piece of code (and [[Execute_Brain****/Brain****|page]]) that has the CC0 declaration attached. This is a specific grant of public domain status.
As such anyone is legally allowed to slap any license they choose onto it. (this BTW was one of the reasons that the GPL license was created in the first place.)
As I which to comply with the wishes of the original author (although not forced to) I have also copied (added) the CC0 declaration to that page. This legally makes it dual licensed but due to the choice of '''license''' (CC0) the GFDL statement is legally meaningless.
[[User:Rdebath|Rdebath]] ([[User talk:Rdebath|talk]]) 14:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
:If it is not your code and the license would be changed, then unless the original license said that you were able to re-license the code then you need to get the original authors permission for a change of license to that used on RC. '''Until then it would be proper to remove the code'''. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 16:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
::Because it's CC0 (AKA public domain) everyone has permission to change the license; stupid as it sounds. Like I said, this sort of legal stupidity is one of the major reasons that the GPL was invented. [[User:Rdebath|Rdebath]] ([[User talk:Rdebath|talk]]) 18:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
| |||