Discuss mailing list

[Quinn Wood <wood.quinn.s AT gmail.com>]

On 01/02/2013 10:37 AM, Aaron Angel wrote:
> Right, so where's the sense in an unregistered entity electing a license,
> when it can't copyright any content to be able to license it in the first
> place?
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Quinn Wood <wood.quinn.s AT gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 01/02/2013 10:18 AM, Aaron Angel wrote:
> >
> > > As it stands right now, I would think the content's author would hold the
> > > copyright, until it is assigned to someone else.  And, despite prior
> > > discussions that suggest the contrary, the legal status of OpenNIC still
> > > seems fuzzy to me, since it has yet to be registered anywhere as anything.
> > >
> > >   You can't grant a copyright-based monopoly to anything but a natural
> > person or a registered entity. Hopefully the site won't display anything
> > stupid like
> >
> > "Copyright <?php date('Y'); ?> http://opennicproject.org";
> >
> > --
> > Quinn
> > http://woodquinn.x10.mx
> >
> >
> >
> > --------
> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. You may unsubscribe by
> > emailing 
> > discuss-unsubscribe@lists.**opennicproject.org<discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org>
>
>
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
Combine that with the fact that nobody is going to sue regardless + the 
'stuff" is being provided for free on a non-commercial basis, and you've 
got a case for a nice nonrestrictive "for the sake of people worried 
about licenses" license. I'd suggest going with a twofold "site design" 
and "other contributions are copyright their contributors" license.

--
Quinn
http://woodquinn.x10.mx