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

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:
 * Copyleft:
 * I, the author, hereby place this code into the public domain.
* This applies worldwide. I grant any entity the right to use this work for
 * ANY PURPOSE, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required
 * by law.

The (upstream) source code is covered by "MIT or RHash dual license" ( http://rhash.anz.ru/license.php?l=en ). The Wikipedia says being in "public domain" means "not covered by copyrights",

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) debian/copyright file?

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.


Reply to: