Re: License questions

Roger Schlafly wrote:

> "Simon G Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> > I don't believe it. You found a web site that doesn't appear to
>> > address any of the above alternatives, so I don't see how it
>> > supports the notion that one alternative works better than another.
>> Both of those UK government websites support the notion of licensing.
>> ...
>> It does seem that, for UK law, Peter Fairbrother's "legal theory" is
>> correct.
> 
> No, I don't think that Fairbrother's legal theory is correct, or that
> it even makes any sense.
> 
> Everyone agrees that copyrighted materials can be licensed.
> Finding a web site that mentions licensing says nothing. The
> topic under discussion is to compare:
> 
> (1) An author unilaterally and irrevocably dedicating his work
> to the public domain, with no strings attached.
> (2) An author unilaterally and irrevocably dedicating his work
> to the public, subject to a complicated set of conditions in an
> attached license.
> 


Far more relevant in any such issue is the "doctrine of laches," which 
incorporates an observation of how the supposed owner of the intellectual 
property (that he now claims to be valuable) acted with regard to it in the 
past.  While there's a cornucopia of information about this on the web that 
I need not repeat here, the basics are common sense, viz:

(1)  The owner of a valuable race-horse will mind his fences.
(2)  He will put up signs reasonably advising that he considers the property 
to be valuable.
(3)  He will patrol his property and act promptly against infringement that 
he knew or reasonably should have known existed.
(4)  His actions will be consistent with his claimed valuation.  The Crown 
Jewels of England are more closely watched than a wedding ring, which in 
turn is more closely watched than a $2 watch.
(5)  He will act consistently against any and all known infringements 
without favor.