Re: New 'Public Domain' Licence
First of, please use your real name when discussing things upon this
list. Anonymity makes it rather difficult for others to follow your
arguments, and interferes with the primary mission of debian-legal.
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005, Anonymous wrote:
> I have seen quite a few people who want to licence their software as
> though it is in the public domain. they are often told to go with a
> bsd or x11 licence. They usually say they don't even whant the
> restrition of forcing people to include the notice.
The MIT license is a fairly standard way to license things in a manner
as close to the public domain in countries that do not have a concept
of public domain. [It's not particularly "new".]
> The licence I propose consists of the MIT licence below, excluding
> the part in the quare brackets.
>
> [, subject to the following conditions:
>
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software].
The part above is almost a no-op, and a good idea regardless, because
it informs recipients of the work what their rights are, and enables
them to sanely to exercise the granted rights upon the work.
Don Armstrong
--
"People selling drug paraphernalia ... are as much a part of drug
trafficking as silencers are a part of criminal homicide."
-- John Brown, DEA Chief
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: