Re: DEP5: Public domain works
Lars Wirzenius <email@example.com> writes:
> On ti, 2011-01-18 at 17:03 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I'm happy to see public domain added as a license keyword.
> This is the consensus, it seems. Would anyone like to suggest a patch
> to implement it?
Here's my proposal:
=== modified file 'dep5.mdwn'
--- dep5.mdwn 2011-01-19 05:22:03 +0000
+++ dep5.mdwn 2011-01-19 09:45:59 +0000
@@ -389,6 +389,7 @@
**keyword** | **meaning**
+`public-domain` | No license required for any purpose; the work is not
subject to copyright in any jurisdiction.
`Apache` | Apache license
`Artistic` | Artistic license
`BSD-2-clause` | Berkeley software distribution license, [2-clause
@@ -467,6 +468,27 @@
> also delete it here.
+### Public domain
+The `License` short name `public-domain` does not refer to a set of
+license terms. There are some works which are not subject to copyright
+in any jurisdiction and therefore no license is required for any
+purpose covered by copyright law. This short name is an explicit
+declaration that the associated files are “in the public domain”.
+Widespread misunderstanding about copyright in general, and the public
+domain in particular, results in the common assertion that a work is
+in the public domain when this is partly or wholly untrue for that
+[Wikipedia article on public
+is a useful reference for this subject.
+When the `License` field in a paragraph has the short name
+`public-domain`, the remaining lines of the field **must** explain
+exactly what exemption the corresponding files for that paragraph have
+from default copyright restrictions.
License names are case-insensitive, and may not contain spaces.
\ “If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; |
`\ but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.” —Donald |
_o__) Robert Perry Marquis |