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

Re: Re: Is 'The Unlicense' DFSG-compliant?

Dear Andy,
dear list members,

thank you very much for your reply and your thoughts on this issue.
I want to pose two concrete follow/up questions if you allow.

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 13:00:08 +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> I think I'd agree with all of the above, especially in light of the comments
> you refer to below. "Public domain" is a difficult concept eg in the US.
> [It may be that some Federal employees place code into the public domain
> by default but they are the only ones].
> The author disclaims all interests for themselves: given that the 
> UnLicense includes a verbatim copy of the MIT licence - just attribute
> the fact that the code was under the UnLicense, note that you are 
> relicensing the code to the MIT licence and go from there?
> In countries that recognise copyright laws - almost all of them - a full
> disclaimer of copyright is not possible.
> this just my opinion. If allowable, it reduces the set of unknown, unenforceablelicences by one and produces greater legal certainty.
> This is explicitly different to a Github case where there is no discernible
> licence and therefore no permission to do anything with the code.
> All the very best, as ever,
> Andy Cater

Do you think that Unlicense can not be considered DFSG?
Could code under the Unlicense be accepted for Debian's package archives
as it is the case with `tvnamer` [0]?

Thank you very much in advance for a short reply.

Best regards

[0] https://sources.debian.org/src/tvnamer/2.5-1/UNLICENSE/

Reply to: