Re: licensing question for "nom.tam.fits"
Le Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 12:17:15PM +0100, Francesco Poli a écrit :
>
> Since one of the "standard short names" for the License field is
> "public-domain", I thought that specifying
>
> Copyright: public-domain
> License: public-domain
> [explanation of why the files are in the public domain...]
>
> was awkward and redundant.
>
> Hence, I wondered what should be put in the Copyright field when the
> License field says "public-domain"...
>
> >
> > Inspecting Debian copyright files from
> > svn://anonscm.debian.org/collab-qa/packages-metadata/ I see that many chose
> > contents such as "none", "nobody", "public-domain", "not relevant", etc, which
> > I think are good enough, given that the content of the Copyright field is
> > free-form.
>
> OK, so maybe
>
> Copyright: none
> License: public-domain
> [explanation of why the files are in the public domain...]
>
> is the way to go.
>
> I just wish that the 1.0 specification were more explicit on this
> point...
If you would like, you can open a wishlist bug, and if the specification is
updated in the future (there is no timeline for this and my opinion is that
currently it would be premature), this bug will remind us to consider adding a
recommendation (and asking you at that time if you would like to summarise the
contents of the Copyright field in files where License indicates
public-domain).
Cheers,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: