Re: DEP-5 and public domain
Charles Plessy <email@example.com> 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 |