On 27 Sep 2018, at 3:48, Anthony Carrico wrote:

On 09/26/2018 05:32 PM, Deren Dohoda wrote:

I put a package up but it has no license info in the code. I would add one which is the most permissive possible that wouldn't cause conflict.
I guess this is BSD? MIT?

In this case, don't license your code, declare it to be in the public

That doesn't necessarily solve the problem, or at least not internationally.

In UK law, for example, 'public domain' means simply 'known to the public', and doesn't have a link to licence information. Also, it seems that there isn't the notion of 'unowned (intellectual) property', so that 'I place this in the public domain' could at most be interpreted as a vague disavowal of interests. That is, it would be an absence of a statement of a licence, rather than a statement of an absence of a licence.

Thus the BSD licence is probably the most permissive thing that's still unequivocally recognisable as a licence.

Best wishes,


Norman Gray  :

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket 
Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
For more options, visit

Reply via email to