On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 08:56:57AM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote: > > Although technically not a license, I believe the above statement is > > sufficient to place the code in question in the public domain. This > > means that there is no longer a copyright on the software at all > > (copyright has been waived), and therefore no license is necessary. > > Public-domain software is DFSG-free. > Oh, so what would need to be changed to make this text a license itself? > The upstream author wouldn't mind changing the current license text if > someone finds more appropriate words or discoveres > mistakes/problems/etc. His main concern is that the code should be > public domain and it's license shouldn't be more restrictive compared > to the 'license' (or lack of it) for DJB's cdb. So if you or someone > else has suggestion for change, please tell me and I'll get in touch > with the upstream author to change the license. If a license is what is desired, then the text should explicitly grant us all the rights that we require under the DFSG. The BSD license is probably the simplest form of this. But again, public-domain software is DFSG-free: if software is in the public domain, there is no copyright holder who can withhold any rights from us. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpkRyWUdgBrs.pgp
Description: PGP signature