Lex wrote:
> If you use MIT/X (or GPL or anyother license) you give up a big advantage
> of public domain: it's rock-solid established law that is codified
> internationally by the Berne convention.
> 

Andrew Greenberg <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
> Lex, what advantages are you talking about?

As I stated in the text you quoted, the advantage that it's rock-solid
established law followed internationally.  I retract my comment about
the Berne Convention, because I don't see it in there despite an
occasional web page saying it is.  On the other hand, it does appear
that authors can easily put things into public domain in practically all
countries.  Am I mistaken?  I can't find one exception, and every site I
can find on google agrees that authors in most countries are free to can
disclaim ownership and release their material to the public.  Here's a
typical comment:

	The rules vary from country to country. In just about every
	country, authors can put a work in the public domain by
	formally declaring that they are doing so.

	http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html

Assuming this is correct, public-domain has a substantial advantage. 
You know what it means and you can safely assume it will hold up as
expected in most jurisdictions.  To contrast, different countries have
varying requirements for what counts as a valid license at all, and thus
it is not even know yet which OSI licenses are valid in which countries.

Two people have now claimed that you cannot disclaim warranty if you
release something to the public domain, but I don't see how that is
true.  You just do it.  For example, you can include a file like this in
your distribution:

	I release the files in this work to the public domain.  I
	disclaim all interest in this work.  I do NOT guarantee the
	work to be fit for any purpose whatsoever.  Do not attempt
	to use it in a nuclear power facility, as a dinner recipe, as light
	reading, [etc. etc. etc.]


Thanks, Patrick, for clearing up what was meant about mixing BSD and GPL
code.  I still do not see that it is safe, even if FSF agrees with your
analysis [1].  First, it is important (and FSF agrees) that you
distinguish BSD from BSD-without-advertising, which the original post I
responded to did not.  Second, MIT-L (for example) requires that an
exact copy of MIT-L be included in derivative works, while GPL says just
the opposite: you can make any change you like in a derivative work,
including, I would assume, removing the work's copy of MIT-L.  MIT-L
therefore has an extra provision that GPL does not, and I don't see how
one can legally re-release an MIT-L program under GPL.  It seems like a
stark difference:  MIT-L says you must include the notice, and GPL says
you may change the work in any way you like.


Lex


[1]
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLic
enses