On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:14:05PM -0500, David Golden wrote: > On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:04 AM, David Cantrell <da...@cantrell.org.uk> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 03:44:14PM -0400, David Golden wrote: > >> C.f. http://rosenlaw.com/lj16.htm > > That article looks solely at software. Distributions on the CPAN are > > not just software. I can imagine *lots* of applications that combine > > perl code (under a licence such as BSD or whatever) and a public domain > > work. If you're going to allow multiple licences (which IMO is > > necessary) then there's a place for "public domain" in the list. > It's a general point, because "software" is only licensable because > code is protected by copyright. (Thus, the term "copyleft"). It's > murky legal territory and IANAL. > > But everything I've read about "public domain" says "don't do it" -- > just use a permissive license instead. E.g. > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ.
If my distribution includes, for example, a copy of some papal bull from the Dark Ages, then that part of the distribution is in the public domain, no matter whether I think it's a good idea or not. -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice Feature: an incorrectly implemented bug
