Re: Comments regarding rhash_1.2.5-1_amd64.changes
Hi Debian-legal people,
I want to consult about legality of the following statement in the rhash
package source files:
* I, the author, hereby place this code into the public domain.
* This applies worldwide. I grant any entity the right to use this
* ANY PURPOSE, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required
* by law.
The (upstream) source code is covered by "MIT or RHash dual license" (
The Wikipedia says being in "public domain" means "not covered by
so here are the questions:
1) does the above "public domain" statement contradicts with being
covering by license?
2) shall the above statement be re-worded/removed (in upstream sources)
to avoid adding "public domain" statement to the (already complex)
The original Idea, for the statement was to convey to people in very
short legal-looking message, that the RHash License allows to do
anything with the source code. Not sure if the goal was reached.
12.06.2011 2:34, rhash.admin wrote:
I suppose you indeed found a contradiction. Thanks for that!
Seems that the term "public domain" has legal meaning "not covered by
copyrights" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain ). I'm not
native English speaker, so please forgive my ignorance :)
This term was used in source code unknowingly, but to encourage people
to do anything they want with the code I written. So I should reword
these statements somehow.
11.06.2011 16:05, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Several files under librhash are public domain
Please mention them in copyright file.