Talk:CC0 FAQ - Revision history

Fgnievinski: /* PDDL & PDDC */ new section

2013-11-15T21:07:46Z

‎PDDL & PDDC: new section

Headlessplatter: /* Is a CC0'd work protected against hijacking? */

2011-03-20T14:51:35Z

‎Is a CC0'd work protected against hijacking?

Headlessplatter: Time-delayed CC0 dedications

2011-03-20T14:26:16Z

Time-delayed CC0 dedications

David Olivier: == Is a CC0'd work protected against hijacking? == A question not found in the FAQ

2011-01-10T10:17:59Z

== Is a CC0'd work protected against hijacking? == A question not found in the FAQ

Chriswaterguy: /* Why is this protected? */ If it's felt necessary to have a protected and "approved" version... (steps)

2010-10-03T11:25:35Z

‎Why is this protected?: If it's felt necessary to have a protected and "approved" version... (steps)

Chriswaterguy: /* Why is this protected? */ new section

2010-10-03T11:23:32Z

‎Why is this protected?: new section

J N: report a misspelled word in CC0 1.0

2009-12-08T16:24:42Z

report a misspelled word in CC0 1.0

Mike Linksvayer: blank out

2009-03-31T05:29:21Z

blank out

61.164.50.75: New page: hjilgjhiogjkygl kgyfhjyftyut rm ujudrtu rdtu6r7gyutdyudtyuuiiuo;jgd

2009-03-31T04:21:22Z

New page: hjilgjhiogjkygl kgyfhjyftyut rm ujudrtu rdtu6r7gyutdyudtyuuiiuo;jgd

New page

hjilgjhiogjkygl kgyfhjyftyut rm ujudrtu rdtu6r7gyutdyudtyuuiiuo;jgd

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:07, 15 November 2013
Line 37:		Line 37:

	Tangentially, I suspect that many people who use some of the more restrictive licenses are more concerned about the next 20 years than that 90 years following their deaths. If we were to recommend to users of other licenses that they establish a time-delayed CC0 dedication, I suspect that a significant portion of them might be amenable to the idea, and this would benefit the commons more than the current state of affairs. --[[User:Headlessplatter\|Headlessplatter]] 14:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)		Tangentially, I suspect that many people who use some of the more restrictive licenses are more concerned about the next 20 years than that 90 years following their deaths. If we were to recommend to users of other licenses that they establish a time-delayed CC0 dedication, I suspect that a significant portion of them might be amenable to the idea, and this would benefit the commons more than the current state of affairs. --[[User:Headlessplatter\|Headlessplatter]] 14:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	== PDDL & PDDC ==
		+
		+	It seems the question about CC0 vs. PDDL got inadvertently wiped out [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=CC0_FAQ&diff=42598&oldid=42433] in the process of removing the ones about PDDC (now known as PDM, I believe). Should the following question be restored? Thanks. [[User:Fgnievinski\|Fgnievinski]] ([[User talk:Fgnievinski\|talk]]) 21:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
		+	:'' '''How is CC0 different from the Public Domain Dedication and License (“PDDL”) published by Open Data Commons?''' The [http://www.opendatacommons.org PDDL] is intended only for use with databases and the data they contain. CC0 may be used for any type of content protected by copyright, such as journal articles, educational materials, books, music, and art, as well as databases and data. And just like our licenses, CC0 has the added benefit of being expressed in three ways: through a human-readable deed (a plain-language summary of CC0), the legal code, and digital code. The digital code is a machine-readable translation of CC0 that helps search engines and other applications identify CC0 works by their terms of use.''

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:51, 20 March 2011
Line 29:		Line 29:

	[[User:David Olivier\|David Olivier]] 10:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)		[[User:David Olivier\|David Olivier]] 10:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	: When a hijacker asserts Copyright over a work that he did not create, he commits fraud. There is no need specify in your license that fraud is disallowed because it is already illegal. (Obviously, it would be silly to include a clause in your license explicitly forbidding anyone to murder the author.) In cases where the victim of an illegal act is the commons, I do not know who is supposed to take the perpetrator to court, but this is still an issue for the law to solve, not the license. A license cannot do much to make a government more diligent at prosecuting a particular crime.--[[User:Headlessplatter\|Headlessplatter]] 14:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

	== How do I set up a time-delayed CC0 dedication? ==		== How do I set up a time-delayed CC0 dedication? ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:26, 20 March 2011
Line 29:		Line 29:

	[[User:David Olivier\|David Olivier]] 10:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)		[[User:David Olivier\|David Olivier]] 10:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
		+
		+	== How do I set up a time-delayed CC0 dedication? ==
		+
		+	I am particularly opposed to the excessive duration of Copyright terms. Consequently, I would like to specify that after a certain date, my work is dedicated to the public domain via CC0. In order to greedily benefit myself, I plan to use one of the more restrictive CC licenses prior to that date. Are there any guidelines regarding the specific wording that I should use in order to set up a time-delayed CC0 dedication?
		+
		+	Tangentially, I suspect that many people who use some of the more restrictive licenses are more concerned about the next 20 years than that 90 years following their deaths. If we were to recommend to users of other licenses that they establish a time-delayed CC0 dedication, I suspect that a significant portion of them might be amenable to the idea, and this would benefit the commons more than the current state of affairs. --[[User:Headlessplatter\|Headlessplatter]] 14:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:17, 10 January 2011
Line 17:		Line 17:

	If it's felt necessary to have a protected and "approved" version, then do that - but have an open edit version as well. The "Pending changes" tool on Wikipedia would make this easy, but the same thing can be done in a cruder manual way, without that. --[[User:Chriswaterguy\|Chriswaterguy]] 11:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)		If it's felt necessary to have a protected and "approved" version, then do that - but have an open edit version as well. The "Pending changes" tool on Wikipedia would make this easy, but the same thing can be done in a cruder manual way, without that. --[[User:Chriswaterguy\|Chriswaterguy]] 11:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Is a CC0'd work protected against hijacking? ==
		+
		+	I think CC0 is the right thing for me, because I do not believe in intellectual property. I do however have a slight doubt about which I have not found an answer in the FAQ.
		+
		+	I wish to relinquish all rights to my work, except that I do wish to retain the right to use it and publish it in the future. My fear is that CC0 might make it ''as if I had not published the work at all'', and enable any other person to publish the work under his or her name and, ''in virtue of such a publication, claim exclusive rights to the work''.
		+
		+	I understand that if I publish something under CC0, I cannot prevent someone else from using it as he or she wishes, even pretending to be the original author - that would be distasteful, but I do not wish for it to be illegal, any more than it is illegal for me to claim to be the author of Shakespeare's plays - absurd, but not illegal. However I cannot, on the basis of such a claim, prevent others from using and republishing Shakespeare's plays. If I publish under CC0, do I remain protected against any such rogue claims?
		+
		+	(Not that many people flock to claim my work as theirs - it's mainly a question of principle.)
		+
		+	[[User:David Olivier\|David Olivier]] 10:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:25, 3 October 2010
Line 14:		Line 14:
	This page needs work - if I read as far as the point where an actual definition is given, my eyes glaze over before I get there - maybe because IANAL :-). That's not to ignore the good work and good info here - it's just that I'd like to see users allowed to add add an intro and edit for clarity... but they can't as it's protected.		This page needs work - if I read as far as the point where an actual definition is given, my eyes glaze over before I get there - maybe because IANAL :-). That's not to ignore the good work and good info here - it's just that I'd like to see users allowed to add add an intro and edit for clarity... but they can't as it's protected.

−	For now I'm adding [[CC0]] as a separate page (was a redirect to here) but I'd suggest that protection be removed on this page - it's a wiki after all, so a user in good standing should be able to edit any page, right? --[[User:Chriswaterguy\|Chriswaterguy]] 11:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)	+	For now I'm adding [[CC0]] as a separate page (was a redirect to here) but I'd suggest that protection be removed on this page - it's a wiki after all, so a user in good standing should be able to edit any page, right?
		+
		+	If it's felt necessary to have a protected and "approved" version, then do that - but have an open edit version as well. The "Pending changes" tool on Wikipedia would make this easy, but the same thing can be done in a cruder manual way, without that. --[[User:Chriswaterguy\|Chriswaterguy]] 11:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:23, 3 October 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Thanks,		Thanks,
	[[User:J N\|J N]] 16:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)		[[User:J N\|J N]] 16:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Why is this protected? ==
		+
		+	This page needs work - if I read as far as the point where an actual definition is given, my eyes glaze over before I get there - maybe because IANAL :-). That's not to ignore the good work and good info here - it's just that I'd like to see users allowed to add add an intro and edit for clarity... but they can't as it's protected.
		+
		+	For now I'm adding [[CC0]] as a separate page (was a redirect to here) but I'd suggest that protection be removed on this page - it's a wiki after all, so a user in good standing should be able to edit any page, right? --[[User:Chriswaterguy\|Chriswaterguy]] 11:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision	Revision as of 16:24, 8 December 2009
Line 1:	Line 1:
	+	Hi,

	+	Just noticed what looks like a small spelling mistake in the CC0 1.0 Universal legal code. In section 4b, when the Affirmer disclaims warranty concerning “the present or absence of errors”, I think ‘present’ should be ‘presence’.
	+
	+	Not likely to cause confusion, but thought you might like to know for the next revision.
	+
	+	If this is not the right place, please let me know or pass on this report.
	+
	+	Thanks,
	+	[[User:J N\|J N]] 16:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:29, 31 March 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~hjilgjhiogjkygl kgyfhjyftyut rm ujudrtu rdtu6r7gyutdyudtyuuiiuo;jgd~~	+