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, 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?
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. --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.)
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.--Headlessplatter 14:51, 20 March 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. --Headlessplatter 14:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
PDDL & PDDC
It seems the question about CC0 vs. PDDL got inadvertently wiped out  in the process of removing the ones about PDDC (now known as PDM, I believe). Should the following question be restored? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)