Re: Re: Is 'The Unlicense' DFSG-compliant?
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 06:58:19AM +0100, Jan Gru wrote:
> 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?
It probably disclaims enough that the author has no rights that they want
to assert. Probably DFSG in my opinion, then, but not a licence I could
suggest to anybody. Relicensing might be cleaner.
> Could code under the Unlicense be accepted for Debian's package archives
> as it is the case with `tvnamer` ?
If it's already in, then someone will have made that determination for
themselves previously and the FTP team will have accepted it - so theirs
probably no problem with the licence.
> Thank you very much in advance for a short reply.
> Best regards
>  https://sources.debian.org/src/tvnamer/2.5-1/UNLICENSE/