> In most of Europe, it is not possible for authors to assign or even waive their moral rights. This is following a tradition in European copyright itself, which is regarded as an item of property which cannot be sold, but only licensed. The author can agree to waive them to a limited extent (and such terms are very common in contracts in Europe).
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights#In_Europe)
IIRC, moral rights are also always tied to the individual and not to the employer or organization.
In NL, these moral rights include the following properties:
> even after transferring their copyright, the original creator retains the rights to:
> 1a. oppose publication of the work without attribution
> 1b. oppose publication of the work under a different name than their own (applies to both the name of the work and the name of the creator)
> 1c. oppose modifications of the work
> 1d. oppose any kind of mutilation of disfiguration of the work, or modifications that would negatively affect the perception of the work or its creator
> Of these rights, 1a can be waived entirely; 1b and 1c can be waived only with regards to the name of the work, not its creator; right 1d remains the privilege of the creator (or any designated heir) for the entire duration of the copyright itself.
(from https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001886/2015-07-01/#Hoofdstuk...)
edit: note that (1c) talks about modifications of the original (physical) work; it doesn't necessarily apply in the same sense as the GPL, where all extensions/updates to the original codebase are also considered modifications of the same work.
IANAL
The problem with Public Domain is that it is decided by law, not by you. You can't put anything on the public domain; the public takes domain by expiring copyright.
> This software is information. It is subject only to local laws of physics.
I deliberately use the term "information" here to convey a sense of factual truth which is generally not protected under copyright. It is meant to be a license that transcends all human legal systems since I cannot guarantee any protections they would provide.
I have been told this will not stand up in a court of law, but the people who told me this don't seem to understand its purpose or effects. As long you obey the laws of physics no legal intervention is ever required. And the best part is that even the people who disagree must always conform to its terms.
"this software is information" does not achieve this because information can be subject to intellectual property laws! Even excluding that, it's not clear so imposes a legal risk on users.
"It is subject only to local laws of physics" does not achieve a clear grant of permission. It's phrased as a statement of fact, and a statement of fact doesn't actually give permission for a reader to just act as if its true.
There's minor issues too... just use the 0BSD or MIT-no-attribution or CC0 license which does what you want in clear and unambiguous legal language, with the bonus of trying to stop you getting sued.
How can I create unambigous legal language if I don't know the laws to which I am subject? Am I supposed to assume US or "Western" style copyright? Will this work in China? What about Russia or North Korea? Does this language work in 2122? 2222? Under what authority?
And since I live in the US, let's be clear: nothing will prevent someone from suing you. The best chance you have is to hope the judge agrees with your interpretation of the law.
- [Unlicense](https://unlicense.org/)
- [What The Fuck You Want](http://www.wtfpl.net/)
- [Public Domain](https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/)
- [0BSD](https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD)
You can find more on tl;dr:legal