[Openfontlibrary] Public Domain?

[Jon Phillips]

On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 17:48 -0800, Jon Phillips wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 19:31 -0600, Karl Berry wrote:
> >     I think PD is equal to a all-permissive non-copyleft license...
> > 
> > No.  Legally they are very different, as I wrote earlier.
> > 
> >     Does PD allow you to relicense? 
> > 
> > Yes (to repeat what Jon said).
> > 
> >     If so, I imagine that relicensing under an all-permissive
> >     non-copyleft license would be quite uncontroversion,
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> Ok, final call. So it sounds like we are moving forward on using only
> the Open Font License and not using public domain, as it is too
> problematic internationally. Is this correct? Final thoughts and then we
> are off and running (which means we need to accelerate our support for
> this license with CC metadata.
> 
> Thanks Karl and Dave for bearing with us all on this :) I personally am
> quite slow :)
> 
> Jon

Looks like I'm answering my own final call...

Ok, so, one more counterpoint to the pd debate is how wikipedia uses
public domain...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cliparts_%28examples%29.png

What, so they use PD no problem. How is this so? Ok, another perspective
from Creative Commons is to continue using public domain because of the
large precedent set by Wikipedia and so forth and/or add some language
at the end of the public domain dedication that says if PD is not
supported, then it is free/free of copyright completely...there is
supposedly language on wikipedia that does this, but I can't find it
now. Does anyone know about this?

Jon

-- 
Jon Phillips

San Francisco, CA
USA PH 510.499.0894
jon at rejon.org
http://www.rejon.org

MSN, AIM, Yahoo Chat: kidproto
Jabber Chat: rejon at gristle.org
IRC: rejon at irc.freenode.net