Re: public domain, take ∞
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:21:24 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:56:27AM -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
>> Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
>> bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here
>> might have any ideas for improving the wording of the following license
>> # Let this be known to all concerned: It is the specific intent of the
>> # author of this script that any party who may have access to it always
>> # treat it and its contents as though it were a work to which any and all
>> # copyrights have expired.
>> I thought about "s/author/sole author/" but decided against it as not
>> generic enough. I can see how deciding against it may make it rather
>> unclear as to whose intent is being expressed, but I think that would be
>> rather moot anyway in the event of any dispute. I now cut the ribbon
>> opening this to the free-for-all of opinions...
> What about:
> The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain.
Looking through the list archives, I saw that it was recently stated here
that the wording you just suggested may be legally meaningless, and in at
least one English-speaking jurisdiction, amounts to gibberish.
PS-Please fix your mutt and/or terminal config, as the subject line should
public domain, take ∞
public domain, take ?$B!g
PPS-I am not a subscriber to any of the Debian lists, and post only via