On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Barbie <bar...@missbarbell.co.uk> wrote: > If I want to include a pre-existing piece of work in a distribution, > which has already been released as public domain, then I would prefer to > acknowledge that part of the whole is released that way. > > I already have distributions that are lacking, because I don't want to > release a package that has mixed licenses, as I can't state that > clearly in all parts of the distribution.
The proposed patch says "If multiple licenses are listed, the distribution documentation should be consulted for specific terms". It also lists "unrestricted" as an option for something that is not restricted but is not OSI approved. To be pedantic about it, "public domain" is not a license. It is a statement of a lack of copyright, which may or may not be a legal statement depending on jurisdiction. From wikipedia on "moral rights": >Article 6bis of the Berne Convention protects attribution and integrity, >stating: > > Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer > of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of > the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification > of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be > prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation. So even if you (or someone else) declares something to be in the "public domain" (transferring economic rights), you could object to its use in any way that is prejudicial to your honor or reputation. (This is usually where an argument about use by neo-Nazis would follow, which I will elide.) So -- in short -- I see no reason to include "public domain" in the license field. If you or others want to list "unrestricted" (possibly among several other applicable licenses) and explain it in the text, you're free to do so. "license" in META is a just a hint, not a firm declaration. -- David
