On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Nico Schlömer wrote: > I sometimes see in d/copyright > > > Copyright: John Doe > > License: public-domain > > e.g., [1]. However, these two statements contradict each other: public > domain means exactly the _absence_ of copyright [2].
The Copyright: field in this case is usually indicating who holds any residual copyright or author's rights in a jurisdiction which does not completely support public domain (PD). It also indicates who the individual was who dedicated the work to the PD. > Specifically, public domain is _not_ open source [3]. PD works are not necessarily open source in all jurisdictions, but they can satisfy the DFSG in many. > Since Debian is usually quite careful when it comes to legal issues, > I'm wondering what the official view point is here. The official viewpoint is that the software must meet the requirements of the DFSG. Generally, a CC0-style PD dedication is viewed as sufficient for all jurisdictions, and can satisfy the DFSG if source is available. Finally, I'm unaware of a case where a jurisdiction has upheld a copyright claim to a work which has been dedicated to the public domain everywhere. This is a potential theoretical source of problems, but there's enough actual problems with copyright and licensing for us to concentrate our limited time on them instead. > Should there be a lintian error if the "license" is public domain and > a copyright holder is specified? No. > Should "public-domain" perhaps be prohibited in general? Definitely not. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com He quite enjoyed the time by himself in the mornings. The day was too early to have started going really wrong. -- Terry Pratchet _Only You Can Save Mankind_ p133
