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

Re: DEP-5 and public domain

Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:

> Le Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 02:05:42AM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit :
> > 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”.
> there would still be no ambiguity

I'm not arguing that there's ambiguity; I'm arguing that the keyword
“no” is poorly chosen because it doesn't clearly connote what we want it

> Would the following paragraphs summarise well the discussion ?
>   As a special case, the fist line of the `License` field can be used to
>   document that a work has no license, and further explanations can be
>   provided in the continuation lines. The following short names are used:
>   [[!table data="""
>   `No`           | The work is not licenseable.
>   `PD`           | The work has been placed in the public domain.
>   """]]

I think that if we want a meaning of “The work is not licenseable”, or
“A license is not needed”, then ‘License: No’ is a poor choice for that
since it doesn't clearly suggest what the gloss wants it to.

Rather, something like ‘License: Not-Applicable’ or ‘License:
Not-Required’ says it more clearly. I propose each of those as a
potential keyword for the meaning we're discussing.

 \     “Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.” —Pablo |
  `\                                                           Picasso |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Reply to: