Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #71389 > unrolled thread

Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-05-12 16:19 +0100
    Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-05-12 17:47 +0000
      Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 12:31 -0600
      Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2014-05-12 20:42 +0100
      Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 16:16 -0600
      Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 09:42 +1000
      Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-05-13 01:18 +0000
        Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 11:39 +1000
          Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 16:25 +1000
            Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 16:32 +1000
        Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 20:58 -0500
        Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-05-13 03:33 +0100
        Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 22:10 -0700
          Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 00:39 -0500
            Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2014-05-13 01:45 -0400
            Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-05-13 16:03 +1000
            Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-05-12 23:09 -0700
            Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 16:18 +1000
              Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 01:32 -0500
              Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Mark H Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 01:32 -0500
              Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-05-13 07:20 -0400
                Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-05-13 13:39 +0000
                  Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 23:43 +1000
                    Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 07:30 -0700
                      Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 00:36 +1000
                  Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-13 13:51 +0000
                    Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-05-13 14:42 +0000
                      Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-13 15:21 +0000
                      Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-05-13 23:53 +0000
                        Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 10:08 +1000
                          Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-05-14 12:42 +0000
                            Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 22:52 +1000
                            Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-16 14:46 +0000
                              Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-05-17 01:07 +0000
                                Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-17 07:19 +0300
                                  Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-05-17 09:35 +0100
                                  Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> - 2014-05-17 10:29 +0100
                                    Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-05-17 14:15 +0000
                                      Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> - 2014-05-17 22:01 +0100
                                Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> - 2014-05-17 09:57 +0100
                                  Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-05-17 12:07 +0000
                                    Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> - 2014-05-17 22:07 +0100
                                Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-05-17 19:18 +1000
                                Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-05-17 21:05 +1000
                        [OT] Copyright statements and why they can be useful (was: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3) Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au> - 2014-05-14 11:01 +1000
                        Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 09:07 -0600
                  Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2014-05-13 21:56 -0400
              Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-13 13:49 +0000
        Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 gregor <gregor@ediwo.com> - 2014-05-13 09:27 +0200
        Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2014-05-13 10:08 +0200
          Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-13 11:25 +0300
            Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 18:38 +1000
              Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-13 12:06 +0300
                Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 19:29 +1000
                Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2014-05-13 09:44 +0000
              Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2014-05-13 11:38 +0200
            Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2014-05-13 11:46 +0200
              Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-05-13 12:59 +0300
            Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-05-13 14:30 +0100
            Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 23:37 +1000
            Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Skip Montanaro <skip@pobox.com> - 2014-05-13 09:02 -0500
          Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2014-05-14 00:00 -0700
        Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-05-13 11:19 +0000
          Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 10:08 -0600
            Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-05-14 00:10 +0000
              Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2014-05-13 17:53 -0700
              Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-05-14 17:47 -0400
              Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Antoine Pitrou <antoine@python.org> - 2014-05-16 11:50 +0000
                Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2014-05-16 06:20 -0700
            Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2014-05-14 12:38 +0000
          Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Robin Becker <robin@reportlab.com> - 2014-05-14 16:30 +0100
          Re: Everything you did not want to know about Unicode in Python 3 Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 09:56 -0600

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#71471

In article <mailman.9939.1399961928.18130.python-list@python.org>,
 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> > (It's always a good day to remind people that the rest of the world
> > exists.)
> 
> Ironic that this should come up in a discussion on Unicode, given that
> Unicode's fundamental purpose is to welcome that whole rest of the
> world instead of yelling "LALALALALA America is everything" and
> pretending that ASCII, or Latin-1, or something, is all you need.

ASCII *is* all I need.  The problem is, it's not all that other people 
need, and I need to interact with those other people.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71485

On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:20:34 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

> ASCII *is* all I need.

You've never needed to copyright something? Copyright © Roy Smith 2014... 
I know some people use (c) instead, but that actually has no legal 
standing. (Not that any reasonable judge would invalidate a copyright 
based on a technicality like that, not these days.)

Or price something in cents? I suppose the days of the 25¢ steak dinner 
are long gone, but you might need to sell something for 99¢ a pound... 


> The problem is, it's not all that other people
> need, and I need to interact with those other people.

True, true.



-- 
Steven D'Aprano
http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71487

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> You've never needed to copyright something? Copyright © Roy Smith 2014...
> I know some people use (c) instead, but that actually has no legal
> standing. (Not that any reasonable judge would invalidate a copyright
> based on a technicality like that, not these days.)

Copyright Chris Angelico 2014. The full word "copyright" has legal
standing. I tend to stick with that in my README files; staying ASCII
makes it that bit safer for random text editors
(*cough*Notepad*cough*) that might otherwise misinterpret it (only a
bit, though [1]).

> Or price something in cents? I suppose the days of the 25¢ steak dinner
> are long gone, but you might need to sell something for 99¢ a pound...

$0.99/lb? :)

ChrisA

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_hid_the_facts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71494

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:13:47 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> > Or price something in cents? I suppose the days of the 25¢ steak dinner
> > are long gone, but you might need to sell something for 99¢ a pound...
> 
> 
> $0.99/lb? :)

Dollars Zeros Slashes Question marks Smileys...
Just alphabets is enough I think...

Come to think of it why have anything other than zeros and ones?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71496

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> Come to think of it why have anything other than zeros and ones?

Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/257/

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71491

On 2014-05-13, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:20:34 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> ASCII *is* all I need.
>
> You've never needed to copyright something? Copyright © Roy Smith 2014...

Bah.  You don't need the little copyright symbol at all.  The
statement without the symbol has the exact same legal weight.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! World War Three can
                                  at               be averted by adherence
                              gmail.com            to a strictly enforced
                                                   dress code!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71497

On Tue, 13 May 2014 13:51:20 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:

> On 2014-05-13, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:20:34 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>>> ASCII *is* all I need.
>>
>> You've never needed to copyright something? Copyright © Roy Smith
>> 2014...
> 
> Bah.  You don't need the little copyright symbol at all.  The statement
> without the symbol has the exact same legal weight.


You do not need any statements at all, copyright is automaticly assigned 
to anything you create (at least that is the case in UK Law) although 
proving the creation date my be difficult.



-- 
Depends on how you define "always".  :-)
             -- Larry Wall in <199710211647.JAA17957@wall.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71499

On 2014-05-13, alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2014 13:51:20 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> On 2014-05-13, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:20:34 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> ASCII *is* all I need.
>>>
>>> You've never needed to copyright something? Copyright © Roy Smith
>>> 2014...
>> 
>> Bah.  You don't need the little copyright symbol at all.  The statement
>> without the symbol has the exact same legal weight.
>
> You do not need any statements at all, copyright is automaticly assigned 
> to anything you create (at least that is the case in UK Law)
> although proving the creation date my be difficult.

Yep, it's the same in the US.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Hello.  Just walk
                                  at               along and try NOT to think
                              gmail.com            about your INTESTINES being
                                                   almost FORTY YARDS LONG!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71515

On Tue, 13 May 2014 14:42:51 +0000, alister wrote:

> On Tue, 13 May 2014 13:51:20 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-05-13, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:20:34 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> ASCII *is* all I need.
>>>
>>> You've never needed to copyright something? Copyright © Roy Smith
>>> 2014...
>> 
>> Bah.  You don't need the little copyright symbol at all.  The statement
>> without the symbol has the exact same legal weight.
> 
> 
> You do not need any statements at all, copyright is automaticly assigned
> to anything you create (at least that is the case in UK Law) although
> proving the creation date my be difficult.

(1) In my lifetime, that wasn't always the case. Up until the 1970s or 
thereabouts, you had to explicitly register anything you wanted 
copyrighted, a much more sensible system which weeded out the meaningless 
copyrights on economically worthless content. If we still had that 
system, orphan works would be a lesser problem.

With the current system, all of us here are technically violating 
copyright every time we reply to an email and quote more than a small 
percentage of it. Not to mention all the mirror sites that violate 
copyright by mirroring our posts in their entirety without permission.

(Author's moral rights not to be misquoted or plagiarised are a different 
kettle of fish separate from their ownership rights over the work. That 
should be automatic.)

(2) You don't have to just prove copyright. You also have to *identify* 
who the work is copyrighted by, and it needs to be an identifiable legal 
person (actual person or corporation), not necessarily the author. In the 
absence of a statement otherwise, copyright is assumed to be held by the 
author, but that's not always the case -- it might be a work for hire, or 
copyright might have been transferred to another person or entity. Or the 
author is unidentifiable. Hence the orphan work problem: it's presumed to 
be copyrighted, but since nobody knows who owns the copyright, there's no 
way to get permission to copy that work. It might as well be lost, even 
when the original is sitting right there in front of you mouldering away.



-- 
Steven D'Aprano
http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71517

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> With the current system, all of us here are technically violating
> copyright every time we reply to an email and quote more than a small
> percentage of it.

Oh wow... so when someone quotes heaps of text without trimming, and
adding blank lines, we can complain that it's a copyright violation -
reproducing our work with unauthorized modifications and without
permission...

I never thought of it like that.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71551

On Wed, 14 May 2014 10:08:57 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> With the current system, all of us here are technically violating
>> copyright every time we reply to an email and quote more than a small
>> percentage of it.
> 
> Oh wow... so when someone quotes heaps of text without trimming, and
> adding blank lines, we can complain that it's a copyright violation -
> reproducing our work with unauthorized modifications and without
> permission...
> 
> I never thought of it like that.
> 
> ChrisA

I think I could make a very strong case that anything sent to a public 
forum with the intention of being broadcast has been placed into the 
public domain by this action.
  



-- 
Work expands to fill the time available.
		-- Cyril Northcote Parkinson, "The Economist", 1955

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71552

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:42 PM, alister
<alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2014 10:08:57 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Steven D'Aprano
>> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>>> With the current system, all of us here are technically violating
>>> copyright every time we reply to an email and quote more than a small
>>> percentage of it.
>>
>> Oh wow... so when someone quotes heaps of text without trimming, and
>> adding blank lines, we can complain that it's a copyright violation -
>> reproducing our work with unauthorized modifications and without
>> permission...
>>
>> I never thought of it like that.
>>
>> ChrisA
>
> I think I could make a very strong case that anything sent to a public
> forum with the intention of being broadcast has been placed into the
> public domain by this action.

I don't think so. One can reasonably assume that anything sent to a
public forum is permissible to read, and to copy verbatim (although
there may be "presumed limits" on the copying, but probably not with
python-list). But if I quote your text and edit it, then you would
rightly complain, which is not the case with public domain text. The
question is whether or not it's fair to try to scare people with that
when they repeatedly use buggy software that inserts blank lines
everywhere :)

In case it's not obvious, I am NOT seriously contemplating pursuing
anything like this legally. It's just funny to contemplate.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71663

On 2014-05-14, alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2014 10:08:57 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Steven D'Aprano
>> <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>>> With the current system, all of us here are technically violating
>>> copyright every time we reply to an email and quote more than a small
>>> percentage of it.
>> 
>> Oh wow... so when someone quotes heaps of text without trimming, and
>> adding blank lines, we can complain that it's a copyright violation -
>> reproducing our work with unauthorized modifications and without
>> permission...
>> 
>> I never thought of it like that.

> I think I could make a very strong case that anything sent to a public 
> forum with the intention of being broadcast has been placed into the 
> public domain by this action.

At least in the US, there doesn't seem to be such a thing as "placing
a work into the public domain".  The copyright holder can transfer
ownershipt to soembody else, but there is no "public domain" to which
ownership can be trasferred.  IIRC, there is a way under Germain
copyright law to release certain rights.  The mere act of widely
widely distributing something does not in any way relinquish
copyrights.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Am I elected yet?
                                  at               
                              gmail.com            

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71669

On Fri, 16 May 2014 14:46:23 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:

> At least in the US, there doesn't seem to be such a thing as "placing a
> work into the public domain".  The copyright holder can transfer
> ownershipt to soembody else, but there is no "public domain" to which
> ownership can be trasferred.

That's factually incorrect. In the US, sufficiently old works, or works 
of a certain age that were not explicitly registered for copyright, are 
in the public domain. Under a wide range of circumstances, works created 
by the federal government go immediately into the public domain.

It is true that under the Mickey Mouse Copyright Grab Act[1] of <insert 
years here>, every time Mickey Mouse is about to reach the end of 
copyright, Congress retroactively extends copyright terms for another few 
decades, but that's another story.




[1] Not the real name of the act.

-- 
Steven D'Aprano
http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71670

Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>:

> On Fri, 16 May 2014 14:46:23 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> At least in the US, there doesn't seem to be such a thing as "placing
>> a work into the public domain". The copyright holder can transfer
>> ownershipt to soembody else, but there is no "public domain" to which
>> ownership can be trasferred.
>
> That's factually incorrect. In the US, sufficiently old works, or works 
> of a certain age that were not explicitly registered for copyright, are 
> in the public domain. Under a wide range of circumstances, works created 
> by the federal government go immediately into the public domain.

Steven, you're not disputing Grant. I am. The sole copyright holder can
simply state: "this work is in the Public Domain," or: "all rights
relinquished," or some such. Ultimately, everything is decided by the
courts, of course.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71672

On 17/05/2014 05:19, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>
> The sole copyright holder can
> simply state: "this work is in the Public Domain," or: "all rights
> relinquished," or some such. Ultimately, everything is decided by the
> courts, of course.
>

For examples see all the Python PEPs.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask 
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71675

On 2014-05-17 05:19, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>:
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2014 14:46:23 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>
>>> At least in the US, there doesn't seem to be such a thing as "placing
>>> a work into the public domain". The copyright holder can transfer
>>> ownershipt to soembody else, but there is no "public domain" to which
>>> ownership can be trasferred.
>>
>> That's factually incorrect. In the US, sufficiently old works, or works
>> of a certain age that were not explicitly registered for copyright, are
>> in the public domain. Under a wide range of circumstances, works created
>> by the federal government go immediately into the public domain.
>
> Steven, you're not disputing Grant. I am. The sole copyright holder can
> simply state: "this work is in the Public Domain," or: "all rights
> relinquished," or some such. Ultimately, everything is decided by the
> courts, of course.

One can state many things, but that doesn't mean they have legal effect. The US 
Code has provisions for how works become copyrighted automatically, how they 
leave copyright automatically at the end of specific time periods, how some 
works automatically enter the public domain on their creation (i.e. works of the 
US federal government), but has nothing at all for how a private creator can 
voluntarily place their work into the public domain when it would otherwise not 
be. It used to, but does not any more.

For a private individual to say about a work they just created that "this work 
is in the Public Domain" is, under US law, merely an erroneous statement of 
fact, not a speech act that effects a change in the legal status of the work. 
For another example of this distinction, saying "I am married" when I have not 
applied for, received, and solemnified a valid marriage license is just an 
erroneous statement of fact and does not make me legally married.

Relinquishing your rights can have some effect, but not all rights can be 
relinquished, and this is not the same as putting your work into the public 
domain. Among other things, your heirs can sometimes reclaim those rights in 
some circumstances if you are not careful (and if they are valuable enough to 
bother reclaiming).

If you wish to do something like this, I highly recommend (though IANAL and 
TINLA) using the CC0 Waiver from Creative Commons. It has thorough legalese for 
relinquishing all the rights that one can relinquish for the maximum terms that 
one can do so in as many jurisdictions as possible and acts as a license to 
use/distribute/etc. without restriction even if some rights cannot be 
relinquished. Even if US law were to change to provide for dedicating works to 
the public domain, I would probably still use the CC0 anyways to account for the 
high variability in how different jurisdictions around the world treat their own 
public domains.

   http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0
   http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ

Note how they distinguish the CC0 Waiver from their Public Domain Mark: the 
Public Domain Mark is just a label for things that are known to be free of 
copyright worldwide but does not make a work so. The CC0 *does* have an 
operative effect that is substantially similar to the work being in the public 
domain.

-- 
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
  that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
  an underlying truth."
   -- Umberto Eco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71693

On Sat, 17 May 2014 10:29:00 +0100, Robert Kern wrote:

> One can state many things, but that doesn't mean they have legal effect.
> The US Code has provisions for how works become copyrighted
> automatically, how they leave copyright automatically at the end of
> specific time periods, how some works automatically enter the public
> domain on their creation (i.e. works of the US federal government), but
> has nothing at all for how a private creator can voluntarily place their
> work into the public domain when it would otherwise not be. It used to,
> but does not any more.

The case for abandonment was stated as "well settled" in 1998 (Micro-Star 
v. Formgen Inc). Unless there has been a major legal change in the years 
since then, I don't think it is true that authors cannot abandon 
copyright.

 
> For a private individual to say about a work they just created that
> "this work is in the Public Domain" is, under US law, merely an
> erroneous statement of fact, not a speech act that effects a change in
> the legal status of the work. For another example of this distinction,
> saying "I am married" when I have not applied for, received, and
> solemnified a valid marriage license is just an erroneous statement of
> fact and does not make me legally married.

There may be something to what you say, although I think we're now 
arguing fine semantic details. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain

To play Devil's Advocate in favour of your assertion, it may be that 
abandoning copyright does not literally put the work in the public 
domain, but merely makes it "quack like the public domain". That is to 
say, the author still, in some abstract but legally meaningless sense, 
has copyright in the work *but* has given unlimited usage rights. (I 
don't actually think that is the case, at least not in the US.)

It's this tiny bit of residual uncertainty that leads some authorities to 
say that it is "hard" to release a work into the public domain, 
particularly in a world-wide context, and that merely stating "this is in 
the public domain" is not sufficient to remove all legal doubt over the 
status, and that a more overt and explicit release *may* be required. 
Hence the CC0 licence which you refer to. The human readable summary says 
in part:

     The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated
     the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her
     rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including
     all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by
     law.

     You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even
     for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

while the actual legal licence comes in at almost 800 words. This is 
basically the same as "I release this to the public domain" only longer.

(The CC0 licence is longer than you might expect, because it is assumed 
that it may have to apply in countries where you *really cannot* 
relinquish copyright. But we're specifically talking about the US, where 
the 9th Circuit says you can.)


> Relinquishing your rights can have some effect, but not all rights can
> be relinquished, 

Outside of the US, so-called "moral rights" or "reputation rights" cannot 
generally be relinquished, except perhaps in work-for-hire and perhaps 
not even then. (E.g. if you're a ghost writer.) The situation in the US 
is a bit murky -- there are no official moral rights per se, and 
copyright only controls usage rights such as copying, distribution and so 
forth. But this doesn't mean that you can (for example) claim authorship 
of a public domain work unless you actually wrote it.

In any case, we're discussing copyright, not other rights.


> and this is not the same as putting your work into the
> public domain. 

One might "not be the same" while still being "effectively the same". For 
example, the U.S. Copyright Office states that "one may not grant their 
work into the public domain. However, a copyright owner may release all 
of their rights to their work by stating the work may be freely 
reproduced, distributed, etc." as if it were in in the public domain.

But note that the Copyright Office does not make the final decision 
whether you can relinquish copyright or not. That's up to the courts.


> Among other things, your heirs can sometimes reclaim
> those rights in some circumstances if you are not careful (and if they
> are valuable enough to bother reclaiming).

That's a good point. A simplistic "I release this to the public domain" 
statement *may* (I emphasise the uncertainty) leave some doubt that it is 
*sufficiently overt* to prevent your heirs from disagreeing and coming 
after your users for infringement. Then the courts have to get involved, 
and it's all ugliness and only the lawyers win.

Hence the advice to be as explicit and overt as possible.


> If you wish to do something like this, I highly recommend (though IANAL
> and TINLA) using the CC0 Waiver from Creative Commons. It has thorough
> legalese for relinquishing all the rights that one can relinquish for
> the maximum terms that one can do so in as many jurisdictions as
> possible and acts as a license to use/distribute/etc. without
> restriction even if some rights cannot be relinquished. 

I agree with all of that not-legal-advice. And I too am not a lawyer.


> Even if US law
> were to change to provide for dedicating works to the public domain, 

This I disagree with -- the 9th Circuit Court says the US already 
provides for that.

What we don't disagree with is that it *may* be trickier than a naive non-
lawyer (including me!) thinks to satisfy the Court's "overt act" test. 
Given that uncertainty, overkill may be safer than underkill. The CC0 
licence, at nearly 800 words, is probably overkill for the US, but it's 
more certain.


> I would probably still use the CC0 anyways to account for the high
> variability in how different jurisdictions around the world treat their
> own public domains.

Yes to all that.


>    http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0
>    http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ
> 
> Note how they distinguish the CC0 Waiver from their Public Domain Mark:
> the Public Domain Mark is just a label for things that are known to be
> free of copyright worldwide but does not make a work so. The CC0 *does*
> have an operative effect that is substantially similar to the work being
> in the public domain.



-- 
Steven D'Aprano
http://import-that.dreamwidth.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71706

On 2014-05-17 15:15, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2014 10:29:00 +0100, Robert Kern wrote:
>
>> One can state many things, but that doesn't mean they have legal effect.
>> The US Code has provisions for how works become copyrighted
>> automatically, how they leave copyright automatically at the end of
>> specific time periods, how some works automatically enter the public
>> domain on their creation (i.e. works of the US federal government), but
>> has nothing at all for how a private creator can voluntarily place their
>> work into the public domain when it would otherwise not be. It used to,
>> but does not any more.
>
> The case for abandonment was stated as "well settled" in 1998 (Micro-Star
> v. Formgen Inc). Unless there has been a major legal change in the years
> since then, I don't think it is true that authors cannot abandon
> copyright.

Good old Micro-Star v. Formgen Inc. A perennial favorite. No, that case did not 
settle this question. There is a statement in the opinion that would suggest 
this, but (and this seems to be a reoccurring theme) it's inclusion in the 
opinion did not create precedent to that effect. The statement that you refer to 
is, as far as my NAL eyes can tell, what the lawyers call "dictum": a statement 
made by a judicial opinion but is unnecessary to decide the case and therefore 
not precedential. FormGen explicitly registered the copyright to the works in 
question, and the case was decided on whether or not the 
Micro-Star-redistributed works counted as derivative works (yes). Now, if the 
case were about an author that affirmatively dedicated his work to the public 
domain and then sued someone who redistributed it, then such a statement would 
have a precedential effect (because then the judge would decide in favor of the 
defendant on the basis of that statement). The quote that you refer to 
references a previous case, which follows similar lines, and also predates the 
"automatic copyright" regime post-Berne Convention, so it's not even clear to me 
that it should have been precedential to Micro-Star.

Even if this case did so decide (which, I will grant it more or less did later 
by codifying such a rule in their jury instructions for such cases), it would 
only have effect in the 9th Circuit of the US and not even in the rest of the 
US, much less worldwide. Why bother when the CC0 gives you the desired effect 
with more assurance to your audience?

>> For a private individual to say about a work they just created that
>> "this work is in the Public Domain" is, under US law, merely an
>> erroneous statement of fact, not a speech act that effects a change in
>> the legal status of the work. For another example of this distinction,
>> saying "I am married" when I have not applied for, received, and
>> solemnified a valid marriage license is just an erroneous statement of
>> fact and does not make me legally married.
>
> There may be something to what you say, although I think we're now
> arguing fine semantic details.

Sure, it's the law. Fine semantic details are important. However, the difference 
between speech acts and statements of fact is a pretty gross semantic 
distinction and not just splitting semantic hairs. The act of making some 
statements (e.g. declaring that a work you own the copyright to is available 
under a given license) actually makes a change in the legal status of something. 
Most statements don't. Which ones do and don't are defined by statute and (in 
common law countries like the US) court decisions. Deciding which is which is 
often hairy, but that's an epistemological problem, not a semantic one. :-)

> See:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Granting_work_into_the_public_domain
>
> To play Devil's Advocate in favour of your assertion, it may be that
> abandoning copyright does not literally put the work in the public
> domain, but merely makes it "quack like the public domain". That is to
> say, the author still, in some abstract but legally meaningless sense,
> has copyright in the work *but* has given unlimited usage rights. (I
> don't actually think that is the case, at least not in the US.)
>
> It's this tiny bit of residual uncertainty that leads some authorities to
> say that it is "hard" to release a work into the public domain,
> particularly in a world-wide context, and that merely stating "this is in
> the public domain" is not sufficient to remove all legal doubt over the
> status, and that a more overt and explicit release *may* be required.
> Hence the CC0 licence which you refer to. The human readable summary says
> in part:
>
>       The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated
>       the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her
>       rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including
>       all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by
>       law.
>
>       You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even
>       for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
>
> http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
>
> while the actual legal licence comes in at almost 800 words. This is
> basically the same as "I release this to the public domain" only longer.

Quite so. Except that the CC0 statement may actually survive probate court if 
your heirs decide that whatever you released is valuable enough to claw back. 
Yes, your heirs can disregard many of the statements (even some bona fide speech 
acts!) that you make during your life if they can demonstrate that it recklessly 
diminished their inheritance. A simple statement that a work is in the public 
domain is much more risky in that situation because it does not fall back on 
standard licensing law when the abandonment of copyright fails. The CC0 has your 
back in that case.

> (The CC0 licence is longer than you might expect, because it is assumed
> that it may have to apply in countries where you *really cannot*
> relinquish copyright. But we're specifically talking about the US, where
> the 9th Circuit says you can.)

The 9th Circuit speaks for the 9th Circuit, not the entire US jurisdiction. They 
often wish otherwise, but there you go. :-)

>> Relinquishing your rights can have some effect, but not all rights can
>> be relinquished,
>
> Outside of the US, so-called "moral rights" or "reputation rights" cannot
> generally be relinquished, except perhaps in work-for-hire and perhaps
> not even then. (E.g. if you're a ghost writer.) The situation in the US
> is a bit murky -- there are no official moral rights per se, and
> copyright only controls usage rights such as copying, distribution and so
> forth. But this doesn't mean that you can (for example) claim authorship
> of a public domain work unless you actually wrote it.
>
> In any case, we're discussing copyright, not other rights.
>
>
>> and this is not the same as putting your work into the
>> public domain.
>
> One might "not be the same" while still being "effectively the same". For
> example, the U.S. Copyright Office states that "one may not grant their
> work into the public domain. However, a copyright owner may release all
> of their rights to their work by stating the work may be freely
> reproduced, distributed, etc." as if it were in in the public domain.

I agree. The CC0 is about the closest that you can get to this. I enter this 
discussion primarily to contest the assert that the simple, one-sentence "this 
work is in the public domain" declarations will reliably have this effect.

<snip the rest where we are more or less agreeing about the CC0>

-- 
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
  that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
  an underlying truth."
   -- Umberto Eco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#71673

On 2014-05-17 02:07, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 14:46:23 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:
>
>> At least in the US, there doesn't seem to be such a thing as "placing a
>> work into the public domain".  The copyright holder can transfer
>> ownershipt to soembody else, but there is no "public domain" to which
>> ownership can be trasferred.
>
> That's factually incorrect. In the US, sufficiently old works, or works
> of a certain age that were not explicitly registered for copyright, are
> in the public domain. Under a wide range of circumstances, works created
> by the federal government go immediately into the public domain.

There is such a thing as the public domain in the US, and there are works in it, 
but there isn't really such a thing as "placing a work" there voluntarily, as 
Grant says. A work either is or isn't in the public domain. The author has no 
choice in the matter.

-- 
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
  that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
  an underlying truth."
   -- Umberto Eco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web