On 06/02/11 21:41, Gaetan Bisson wrote: > [2011-02-06 19:28:38 -0200] Bernardo Barros: >> 2011/2/6 Gaetan Bisson <[email protected]>: >>> "By uploading content to the Arch User Repository, you irrevocably >>> agree to release it in the public domain, to the extent permitted >>> by law." >> >> GPL would do no harm to Arch either. And pieces of code with less >> then 10 lines can't have any copyright. The difference in practice >> is minimal, since it is very unlikely that this piece of code would >> integrate a non-free software, even including big patches and >> tricky things. > > Since there is little difference, why choose a complicated license > such as the GPL over the (much simpler) public domain?
IANAL, but probably because the concept of an author releasing something to "public domain" doesn't exist in all jurisdictions. So it's arguably safer to pick a license, but I agree that the GPL might be too complicated, why not use BSD? /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: [email protected] jabber: [email protected] twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
