http://www.minecraft.net/about.jsp
> I'm not very happy with the draconian nature of (L)GPL
> I'm not very happy with the draconian nature of (L)GPL
If the intent is to be critical of notch, I can't see any fault in his saying he hopes to release source code eventually and that since the GPL is such an anti-freedom license (huh, actually my words not his, but my sincere interpretation and agreement with his 'draconian' term usage), he "might just possibly" release as public domain, which means completely unencumbered and free. That sounds pretty cool. He's not under any obligation to do so though, and I don't see that many other games sold on Steam are somehow better.
Or perhaps you meant to indicate that you think his true reason not to release on Steam is not what he said, but he is lying and the secret real reason is that he intends to release public domain, and for some reason Steam would not allow that after signing their draconian and freedom limiting contracts, that are as freedom limiting as the GPL.
Maybe. Don't know because your post was incoherent.
In short, if you agree with the philosophical and practical advantages of releasing your code into the public domain, there is no excuse not do so under the guise of legal FUD.
Technically, according to the text of the 13th amendment, it formally and legally establishes as a constitutional right of the state to declare people slaves as "punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted", which has of course resulted in prison chain gangs and various corporations hiring prisoners for cheap compliant slave labor over the years, and in the demand for such slave labor and thus the motivation of the state to imprison as many people as possible.
release as public domain, which means completely unencumbered and free
In general, this is true, but some countries do not have a concept of public domain and so releasing it into the public domain would make it completely unusable to people in those countries. Personally, I would prefer either the BSD or MIT license or something like the WTFPL[1].
I mean, suppose a user in Nopublicdomainistan uses some software that is released in the public domain... clearly the author is never going to come after them for a copyright violation, even if their local government doesn't recognize public domain as a concept, so what is the actual real world problem they face in this situation?
I just don't see this as being a real problem.
The problem isn't that your might get sued, it's that you can't convince $POINTY_HAIRED_BOSS that you won't get sued.
I still think the original objection is more retold fairy tale than truth, but if anyone wants to prove me wrong they can point me to a country where public domain isn't recognized, but random user-written OSS licenses are and the country has any sort of culture of respecting copyright in the first place.
I don't know of any countries that do not recognise public domain as a concept, but there are many countries (including the USA) whose copyright laws have no provision for an author 'giving up' their copyright. Just saying "I release this into the public domain" does not necessarily do that, any more than walking away from a house you own means you no longer own it. That means that if somebody says "I release this into the public domain", there's no reason why they couldn't change their mind and sue you for infringing their copyright later.
For more information, see this FAQ on public domain: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.ht...
Also note that Creative Commons has a special "Creative Commons Zero" license designed to provide the same results as "I release this into the public domain" in all jurisdictions, and it takes at least a page of legalese to do so: http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/
TL;DR: saying "I release this into the public domain" probably doesn't do anything; just slap a BSD, MIT or ISC license on the work instead.
Anyone said Germany? The concept of the "Urheberrecht" which many people falsly translate to copyright (it's more of a creator-right) is that you can not relinquish it in Germany. It's kinda like your mother can not "un-mother" herself from you ;)
That's why there's no real Public Domain in its purest form possible in Germany.
> clearly the author is never going to come after them. so what is the actual real world problem they face in this situation
The real problem is: A lack of legal certainty. You can not use PD in any bigger project if it is _possible_ that the original author might come after you.
I've heard this in the past. Functionally, what's the issue with this? The person who placed it into the public domain seems unlikely to sue in a country that doesn't recognize the public domain status.
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.ht...
There is also another problem, you can't disclaim some warranties for customers. So if you could release the software into the public domain, you could still be held accountable for what the software did after being modified.
</nitpicking>
How? Isn't the basis of GPL simply "Use this code however you want providing you make the source code you derive from it freely availble, too"?
The GPL guarantees that the code will forever be open due to the requirement that derivative works are released open and under the GPL.
What this complete 'code availability' freedom limits is what you can do with the code. For example, people are perpetually free to get that source but, you aren't free to incorporate it into proprietary software.
One entities freedoms can be a limit to another's freedoms.
And then I saw the comment about Notch being so respectful and civil and whatnot, and I luled and posted the flame inducing quote.
Not surprisingly, flames ensued.
(L)GPL certainly is draconian (in the sense of strict) and all he is saying is that he personally is not very happy about that. How anyone could not see this as a reasonable statement boggles the mind. (I’m not saying that you have to agree with it.)