In Germany, there is a statutory provision (§33 UrhG) acknowledging that copyright can be abandoned (‘wenn [der Inhaber des Rechts] auf sein Recht verzichtet’, or in the English translation from the Federal Ministry of Justice, ‘if the rightholder waives the right’).

This does not affect ‘moral rights’ (Urheberpersönlichkeitsrechte), only ‘usage rights’ (Nutzungsrechte). There is a terminological issue here because the dictionary will tell you that ‘Urheberrecht’ is the translation for ‘copyright’, and legally ‘Urheberrecht’ includes both aspects. But in reality, ‘usage rights’ are what English speakers generally call ‘copyright’. ‘Moral rights’ cannot be affected by a licence either, so the fact they cannot be abandoned to the public domain is of only tangential relevance.

The European Intellectual Property Helpdesk has asserted in an article that there is the possibility to place things in the ‘public domain’ in Europe. But I emailed them about it, and they admitted that there is no EU-wide legal basis for this and it is up to national laws whether this is legally effective.

(In the US, the situation is as clear as it can possibly be without a Supreme Court ruling: the Ninth Circuit appeals court (which belongs to the next level of US courts below the Supreme Court) says that copyright abandonments to the public domain are effective, and there is no circuit split on this issue – i.e. no other appeals court has issued any ruling contradicting this.)

In any case, the world is bigger than just the US and the EU. This is why the CC0 declaration is the most legally watertight public domain declaration – it has a clear, strong worldwide effect because of its three-tier design: it abandons copyright entirely in those jurisdictions where that is clearly possible, like the US; in jurisdictions where this is not possible, it provides a general licence allowing unlimited reproduction and derivation etc. without any restrictions; and just in case even this is not legally possible, it makes an explicit declaration that the author will not enforce any copyright claims.

Anyway, this is getting a little off topic, as Arthur warned. I just wanted to explain my rationale for wanting CC0 in particular, especially in light of the problems Marc raised.

Daphne

> On 31 Aug 2024, at 22:02, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As far as I know, you cannot reject copyright in all legislation.  At least in continental Europe, there is no public domain.  You can only choose a free license, which is CC0 in legislation where one cannot reject copyright.  Such a free license should be compatible with dual licensing.  Otherwise, I agree with Daphne.  If you don't own any copyright, you can put the work under any license like MIT.
>
> But I am not a lawyer and can be totally wrong.
>
> Marc
>
> PS I don't see where why it should be a problem to submit a SRFI under a license that is at least as free as MITs.
>
> Am Sa., 31. Aug. 2024 um 21:19 Uhr schrieb Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com>:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2024 at 12:12 PM Daphne Preston-Kendal <xxxxxx@nonceword.org> wrote:
>   My point is that together with a public domain declaration such as CC0, a dual ‘licence’ is not valid, because the MIT licence asserts copyright ownership in the work, which CC0 (or any other statement placing something in the public domain) presumes to have been irrevocably abandoned.
>
> Yes, I understand your concern.  However, searching for "dual license mit cc0," I find many cases claiming that the two are, in fact, compatible in many jurisdictions.