[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: One-line licence statement

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 07:52:10PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 21 avril 2010 à 19:28 +0200, Franck Joncourt a écrit : 
> > ------
> > Copyright (c) 1999 by Megginson Technologies.
> > Copyright (c) 2003 Ed Avis <ed@membled.com>
> > Copyright (c) 2004-2010 Joseph Walton <joe@kafsemo.org>
> > 
> > No warranty.  Commercial and non-commercial use freely permitted.
> > ------
> This is clearly non-free, since it doesn’t allow modification and
> redistribution.

Yes, I agree.
As a matter of fact upstream tries to find something as close as possible to the
public domain but keeping the copyright holders. It is a matter of *how to
write it?*

> > As it is intended to be as close to public domain as legally possible, he
> > pointed me out to the following URL:
> > 
> > >From <http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html>:
> > 
> > > All alleged advantages of a "public domain dedication" can be
> > > gained without uncertainty using a regular one-line licence statement,
> > > e.g., "Copyright (C) 2008 Owner Name. Do whatever you want with this work."
> > 
> > Quoting upstream:
> > "This is exactly the form, and intent, of the original XML::Writer licence:
> > you may "Do whatever you want with this work."
> No. You may not, since it only permits use.

As said above, I agree with you, but how to formulate this to get something
similar to:

"Copyright (C) 2008 Owner Name. Do whatever you want with this work."

Have you seen such a licence before we could borrow that sentence from?
Something which is used by other projects as a standard statement.

> > As I am not sure, which form of language would be the best to achieve this
> > goal?
> The simplest way to achieve that is probably the WTFPL.

Nice one! I can check with upstream to get his mind.


Franck Joncourt

Reply to: