I would suggest that we don't know how that story ends, only how it progresses, and the collateral damage that it does. We don't know how to show or tell or even hint that there might be other ways - we can try, but history has shown that it is only experience that _might_ work.
It would be great to know how the story ends, how to jump to the last page - but we still don't know how long the book is. We haven't even approached the resolution (I believe). Hopefully we'll get to the end before the book falls to pieces.
Probably a useful idea. I do like that they separate existing public domain and new public domain. Hopefully that doesn't add to the confusion, tho.
@Revi I think you've described why it is sad. Copyright was originally required to be registered to exist at all, rather than automatic. Needing to differentiate content by using a "Public Domain" (not under website copyright) mark, rather than a "Copyright" (is under website copyright) mark is the exact opposite of the original intention of Copyright law.
While it is of course necessary that people cannot simply write anything they like, this seems really weird.
What if someone writes about their annoyances or feelings or thoughts at home, and never shows it to anyone else?
Consider: A person writes down their feelings about someone else. This just happens to include language that could be considered "racially inflammatory written material". Does this mean that if someone else finds out about what was written down (they don't even have to see it), the person who wrote it down can be tried for "publishing racist information"?
Or someone could just accuse someone else of creating "racially inflammatory written material".
Based on this: "the offences of displaying, distributing or publishing racially inflammatory written material do not require proof that anybody actually read or heard the material", no proof is required that it exists, just that someone thought about "displaying, distributing or publishing" it?
The article's idea that you shouldn't worry about freeloaders, and just concentrate on the contributors (connect with fans and all that) is interesting. I'm not convinced one way or the other. I can certainly see the logic behind it, but I'm not sure it would work out in practice, especially with much smaller projects.
As a developer myself, I certainly appreciate simpler licences.
The concerns over large companies coming in and using the software for themselves may have some merit. Perhaps it's time to stop worrying about contributions back to the project, and just make sure that the credit goes where it's deserved? Recognition and reputation are after all separate (or should be) from copyright and legal concerns.
It is quite one-sided (for CSIRO). They don't seem to realise that even if the patent is valid, going after businesses that actually use it will harm innovation. I know CSIRO is a research facility and uses the money for more research, as the above commenter mentioned... this does seem like one case where the patent really does make sense.