[Clipart] Then what are the legal problems of CC-PD with regards to OCAL?

[Schrijver]

Why I think the licence change is a bad idea, is because I am still  
not aware of exactly what it is that is wrong with the original one.

I for one, do not see in what way CCPD will have any detrimental  
effect on the works in OCAL. I can not really imagine what it would be  
in European copyright laws. I know the Dutch one, and I don’t see such  
a thing.

You can not give up copyright in Europe, just as you can not in the  
US, because it is automatically assigned to you by the terms of the  
Berner convention. So what? I actually really like that. Makes me feel  
more secure as an author, that regardless of legalities, the right to  
call myself a works author are pretty much set in stone.

What I think is mistake here, is in looking at the licences as the  
tools that can solve ambigouities in jurisdiction. It is  
*jurisprudence* that does, and a general education of the public.

I think the more important stuff to be done is in this area, because  
regarding copyright etc., the FUD is immense.

And what is most important to me in this case,
The change CCPD to CC0 is probably small in legal terms.
But the difference in their rhetorical value is immense.

‘Dedicating something to the public domain’ is a concept I can grasp,  
and which sounds like a great thing to do. It is *you* who *dedicates*  
something to the *public good*.

CC0’s emphasis on giving up *as much rights as possible* makes me  
reapprehensive.
I want to be the one who very clearly decides what rights I give up  
and why.

This is the reason why CC-licences are appealing to authors in the  
first place: because they give you the flexibility to do so.

CC0 does not *come across* as being about this. It probably *is*, but  
then IMHO it should be *these* virtues that we are talking about.  
Otherwise I feel this sort of thing to be alienating to nonFOSS people.

So in short, I think a licence change like this is bad for the image  
of OCAL to the world outside FOSS. Not because there is anything  
inherently wrong with it, but because a change like this will always  
trigger the reaction: ‘but wait, am I in some way deprived of  
something?’

So if you can’t make the benefits very clear at the same time, it’s  
IMHO a shoot-in-the-foot.

Eric