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.
Regards,
--
Franck Joncourt
Reply to: