Re: DEP-5 and public domain
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I agree, the files (but the documentation) don't seems copyrightable,
> which is different as PD, so new keyword "NO"?
To my eye, ‘License: NO’ has exactly the wrong connotation (“the
recipient has no copyright license to this work”). The obvious reaction
to that would be “okay, then we can't have it in Debian”.
Perhaps a better one would be ‘License: not-required’. This would say
exactly what we mean, and prompt the right question: On what basis does
the maintainer claim no license is required for this work? The
continuation lines of the field could then be used to answer that
\ “Programs must be written for people to read, and only |
`\ incidentally for machines to execute.” —Abelson & Sussman, |
_o__) _Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs_ |