On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 07:52:10PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mercredi 21 avril 2010 à 19:28 +0200, Franck Joncourt a écrit : > > ------ > > Copyright (c) 1999 by Megginson Technologies. > > Copyright (c) 2003 Ed Avis <[email protected]> > > Copyright (c) 2004-2010 Joseph Walton <[email protected]> > > > > No warranty. Commercial and non-commercial use freely permitted. > > ------ > > This is clearly non-free, since it doesn’t allow modification and > redistribution.
Yes, I agree. As a matter of fact upstream tries to find something as close as possible to the public domain but keeping the copyright holders. It is a matter of *how to write it?* > > As it is intended to be as close to public domain as legally possible, he > > pointed me out to the following URL: > > > > >From <http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html>: > > > > > All alleged advantages of a "public domain dedication" can be > > > gained without uncertainty using a regular one-line licence statement, > > > e.g., "Copyright (C) 2008 Owner Name. Do whatever you want with this > > > work." > > > > Quoting upstream: > > "This is exactly the form, and intent, of the original XML::Writer licence: > > you may "Do whatever you want with this work." > > No. You may not, since it only permits use. As said above, I agree with you, but how to formulate this to get something similar to: "Copyright (C) 2008 Owner Name. Do whatever you want with this work." Have you seen such a licence before we could borrow that sentence from? Something which is used by other projects as a standard statement. > > As I am not sure, which form of language would be the best to achieve this > > goal? > > The simplest way to achieve that is probably the WTFPL. Nice one! I can check with upstream to get his mind. Regards, -- Franck Joncourt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
