Hacker News Reader

Comment by joezydeco | Hacker News Reader

So is this some kind of meta-pirate joke? The source is ripped directly from the German Pirate Party website.

http://www.piratenpartei.de

>ripped directly

Author of the code: "I place this code in the public domain. I require no attribution." : https://github.com/zachstronaut/stop-sopa

Your research-foo leaves much to be desired.

My bad. I thought the public domain code was just the mousehandler at the bottom, not all the CSS tricks above.

The javascript does all the parallax motion of the shadow and adjusts the box and text shadow blur based on distance of "light source" from content. So the CSS and JS are rather intimately linked for the full effect. This is just the web nerd in my jabbering away. ;)

Just a note about copyright law: You can't legally place something in the public domain (even saying you want it public domain is meaningless). The best you can do is license it permissively giving up your five rights to copyright with a clear, perpetual and irrevocable license. The Apache license is a good one to use.

This code as it stands is still fully copyrighted and copying it is technically a felony.

I've heard that's true in other countries, but I'm pretty sure the US allows you to place something in public domain.

That's not the case, you can't opt to enter things in the public domain in the US - the best you can do is license permissively.

Creative Commons have a pretty good piece on this under their CC0 info at http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0.

I'd be very interested if anyone knows of a genuine situation in which one can't disclaim the IP rights one is offering up in a CC0 license (some aspect of moral rights?). I'm thinking of the possibility of problems with heirs-in-title, or somesuch, choosing to assert a right that their successor (the work's creator) wished to give up ... but really I can't see why an heir should be allowed such a right.

Why am I being down voted? What I said is correct and shows some of the current absurdity of copyright. It's clear, relevant, and accurate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com