Agree... Think the same. The name explains itself. Public Domain should be public.
--- - °v° Marcelo Cavalcante Rocha / Kalib - /(_)\ Usuário Linux #407564 / Usuário Asterisk #1148 - ^ ^ GNU-Linux - Livre, Poderoso e Seguro - TUX-CE Member - www.tux-ce.org - Archlinux-br Developer Team - http://archlinux-br.org - http://www.marcelocavalcante.net On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Paulo Matias <[email protected]>wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Daenyth > Blank<[email protected]<daenyth%[email protected]>> > wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 13:02, Hugo Doria<[email protected]> wrote: > >> I am with Allan here. > >> +1 for 'custom'. > > +2 > > > > I'd not agree here. Isn't public domain exactly the absence of a > license? When something is public domain you have no obligations at > all. Even citing the author's name isn't required. You can do what you > want with a public domain work. > > So I can't see why should we require to ship a different public domain > declaration for each public domain package. I think something like > 'none' or 'PD' without the obligation to install anything to > /usr/share/licenses would be the best way to go here. > > > Best regards, > > Paulo Matias >
