> On 29 Aug 2014, at 10:18, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 22:34 +0100, sebb wrote:
>> On 28 August 2014 20:32, Asankha C. Perera <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> I think that is the legal text.. but for the NOTICE file we could possibly
>>> use just the following two lines to keep it short?
>>>
>>>
>>> // Any copyright is dedicated to the Public Domain.
>>> // http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
>>>
>>
>> That would not be sufficient, as it is not clear to what the lines refer.
>>
>> However, we should not add anything to NOTICE unless it is _required_.
>> This does not appear to be the case here.
>>
>> NOTICE is for _required_ attributions.
>>
>
> What does this mean in plain English? We apparently are not required to
> make a formal attribution to the original author. Can I go ahead and
> copy the test data to HC test code tree?
These things are not that black and white.
Part of it is courtesy; part of it is leaving enough breadcrums for our peers
20+ year later -and- for our end users when they need to sort through IP
issues.
So I suggest that:
- leave NOTICE as is - as it is for the more ‚you must read’ this
sort of things.
- Add a section in the LICENSE file -OR- a extra file in the publicsuffic
directory in which you import the publicsuffix data which says
something like:
"
These files/directory/XX have been included under a CC0 1.0
Public Domain Dedication (url). The original can be found
at url.
„
And in any case - put a note in the release notes. Especially if you go down the
path of just a file with the directory as opposed to something at the end
of the license file.
That should make it easy for anyone to find the information reasonably easy;
without
cluttering things up too much.
Thanks,
Dw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
