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

Re: DEP-5 and public domain

"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <cate@debian.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_ |
Ben Finney

Reply to: