David Given writes:
> Example: the command shell I'm using (the CCP in CP/M terminology) is an
> enhanced command shell alternative called ZCPR. The first version of this,
> ZCPR1, which contains no copyright notice, and which was released in 1982
> to the SIG/M public domain distribut
open source alternatives and bundling them together. What this is involving
is trawling through the archives trying to find free or public domain
pieces and piecing them together.
Example: the command shell I'm using (the CCP in CP/M terminology) is an
enhanced command shell alternative called
David Given writes:
> I'm doing some historical data preservation work […] I'm hoping to be
> able to produce a Debian package containing this stuff eventually for
> use in emulators.
Thank you for promoting the preservation and spread of free software.
> Back then people were really slack
good enough for pretty much everybody. Plus, I'm hoping to be able to
produce a Debian package containing this stuff eventually for use in
emulators. Back then people were really slack about licensing. Typically
you'll see software contributed to a 'public domain' library with no
explicit license
Hi,
i've already wrote that i work on a migration of swi-prolog package to
machine-readable d/copyright. I have some more questions and need your
advises. There are several files which contain a copyright notice
stating that these files are in public domain. Well, I understand the
difficulty
singly
> common to need that information years later.
>
Ok. Got permission from Ingo to use his response in the copyright file
and the relevant portion now looks like this:
Files: sct.c
Copyright: 2016 Ted Unangst <t...@openbsd.org>
whitepoints data copyright 2013 Ingo Thies
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Jacob Adams writes ("Re: sct public domain"):
> > Ok that makes sense. Wasn't sure if public domain was more
> > complicated but clearly not.
>
> "Public domain" is very complicated.
Jacob Adams writes ("Re: sct public domain"):
> On 06/24/2016 04:00 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Jacob Adams writes ("sct public domain"):
> >> Firstly, the license of sct consists of one line:
> >> /* public domain, do as you wish
> >
> >
On 06/24/2016 04:00 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jacob Adams writes ("sct public domain"):
>> Firstly, the license of sct consists of one line:
>> /* public domain, do as you wish
>
> Seems like a clear enough intent to dedicate to the public domain,
> along with a
Jacob Adams writes ("sct public domain"):
> Firstly, the license of sct consists of one line:
> /* public domain, do as you wish
Seems like a clear enough intent to dedicate to the public domain,
along with a permission to deal freely. So yes.
> Secondly, sct.c c
I am currently packaging the setcolortemperature program (sct) and I
have two licensing questions.
Firstly, the license of sct consists of one line:
/* public domain, do as you wish
Is this enough to consider this code to be in the public domain? I
maintain this code as upstream but did
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Hello Florent,
you can decouple the two issues:
- The package is totally redistributable in Debian as it is, you do
not need to relicense the files to update to the new upstream release.
- You can work on the resolving the apparent
Hi,
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
I've been a primary proponent of that point of view, and I think it's
probably correct. But I wouldn't claim it's *established*; no qualified
legal expert has said anything so definite here, I believe.
OK, I see.
[...]
I wouldn't want to
Ben Finney writes (Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright):
Florent Rougon f.rou...@free.fr writes:
It has been established by the mavens from this list that the
copyright statements contradict the public domain assertion, and
that simply stating This program
Rather, I think such a declaration is not established to be an effective
divestment of copyright in all the jurisdictions where Debian recipients
operate, and the risk to them is unacceptable —
In addition to what Ian said, Debian already accepts Public Domain
software, even though public
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Ben Finney writes (Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright):
Rather, I think such a declaration is not established to be an
effective divestment of copyright in all the jurisdictions where
Debian recipients operate
domain.
It has been established by the mavens from this list that the
copyright statements contradict the public domain assertion, and
that simply stating This program is in the public domain is not
enough to make it so in general. As a consequence, I am trying to have
the file
Florent Rougon f.rou...@free.fr writes:
It has been established by the mavens from this list that the
copyright statements contradict the public domain assertion, and
that simply stating This program is in the public domain is not
enough to make it so in general.
I've been a primary
Thank you for your replies. It's a pity that properly releasing
something in the public domain is apparently so difficult. The intent
here was to make sure that anyone be free to copy anything from this
file and use it in derivative works without restriction since it is a
demo for a library
Hello,
I have a few questions regarding public domain and DEP-5-compliant
debian/copyright files:
1. I have files in a program with the following copyright statement:
# Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ...
# Copyright (C) 2000 ...
#
# This program is in the public
Le Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:18:11AM +0200, Florent Rougon a écrit :
1. I have files in a program with the following copyright statement:
# Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ...
# Copyright (C) 2000 ...
#
# This program is in the public domain.
but, as I
Florent Rougon f.rou...@free.fr writes:
1. I have files in a program with the following copyright statement:
# Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ...
# Copyright (C) 2000 ...
#
# This program is in the public domain.
but, as I understand it, public domain
I would recommend the copyright holders re-release the work clearly
marked with a license grant of broad attribution-only license
conditions; the Apache Software Foundation License 2.0
URL:http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Apache2.0 is a good one IMO.
If they really want public domain
Ben Finney writes (Re: Public domain and DEP-5-compliant debian/copyright):
Florent Rougon f.rou...@free.fr writes:
1. I have files in a program with the following copyright statement:
# Copyright (C) 2002-2010, 2013, 2014 ...
# Copyright (C) 2000
by the (purported) copyrightholder.
On this I can't see why you modify “copyright holder”. You think this is
an effective divestment of copyright in the work? In all Berne
Convention jurisdictions where Debian recipients will operate?
I don't. It seems clear to me that “This work is in the public
Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes:
Public domain is not a license, its meaning depends
on the country you're in. What if that country applies
laws that violate DFSG ?
I think you have to distinguish between two cases.
1.) Someone releases some code that is accompanied with a statement
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 07:56 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
In addition, I'd like to note that's what CC0 is for, really. It has
some neat fall-back clauses that trigger in the event a jurisdiction
doesn't allow for public domain works as such, and also releases
database rights[1] which some
* Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org [130201 02:24]:
Does this mean there are cases where the work cannot actually
be placed into the public domain ?
In *most* jurisdictions, it appears to not be possible for a copyright
holder to release their work into the public domain. That's why CC0
Bernhard R. Link brl...@debian.org
(So I'd be suprised if any jurisdiction would translate a
I hereby place this work in the public domain to anything but
either making it public domain where possible or to a full permissive
license).
Sadly, in the public domain has two meanings:
1
http://opensource.org/faq#public-domain
http://opensource.org/faq#cc0
Public domain is not a license, its meaning depends
on the country you're in. What if that country applies
laws that violate DFSG ?
Please enlighten me.
Jérémy.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ
Jérémy.
Public domain is not a license, its meaning depends
on the country you're in. What if that country applies
laws that violate DFSG ?
Please enlighten me.
Why? Does this affect any software that you're packaging?
Short answer: any software in that country is not free software
On 31/01/2013 19:45, MJ Ray wrote:
Jérémy.
Public domain is not a license, its meaning depends
on the country you're in. What if that country applies
laws that violate DFSG ?
Please enlighten me.
Why? Does this affect any software that you're packaging?
Not particularly. Some packages i
Jérémy Lal kapo...@melix.org writes:
Will you still be uploading to main, if one day it becomes illegal
in your own country ?
Are you taking a poll? Or is there particular interest in MJ Ray's
answer?
What is the actual issue you're addressing with starting this thread?
--
\ “Think
with starting this thread?
My issue is that i don't understand how public domain is DFSG, and the
consequence is that i cannot handle it properly in debian packages.
For example, reading [0]:
When the License field in a paragraph has the short name public-domain,
the remaining lines
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013, Jérémy Lal wrote:
My issue is that i don't understand how public domain is DFSG,
If a work can actually be placed into the public domain, then that
usually means that it has no copyright, and therefore automatically
satisfies the DFSG so long as there is source
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 04:25:21PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013, Jérémy Lal wrote:
My issue is that i don't understand how public domain is DFSG,
If a work can actually be placed into the public domain, then that
usually means that it has no copyright, and therefore
On 01/02/2013 01:25, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013, Jérémy Lal wrote:
My issue is that i don't understand how public domain is DFSG,
If a work can actually be placed into the public domain
Does this mean there are cases where the work cannot actually
be placed into the public
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 02:04:26AM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
On 01/02/2013 01:25, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2013, Jérémy Lal wrote:
My issue is that i don't understand how public domain is DFSG,
If a work can actually be placed into the public domain
Does this mean
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 02:04:26AM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote:
To be practical, are these files all right to be listed
as 'public-domain' in debian/copyright :
* without copyright notice
Not public domain. Copyrighted without license. If the author hasn't stated
anything, then the work
Sita Sings the Blues goes public domain (CC0):
http://blog.ninapaley.com/2013/01/18/ahimsa-sita-sings-the-blues-now-cc-0-public-domain/
... but not DFSG-free.
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 06:34:35AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
Sita Sings the Blues goes public domain (CC0):
http://blog.ninapaley.com/2013/01/18/ahimsa-sita-sings-the-blues-now-cc-0-public-domain/
... but not DFSG-free.
In what way is CC-0 not dfsg-free?
--
Steve Langasek
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
In what way is CC-0 not dfsg-free?
Perhaps I should have said not suitable for Debian main; the source
code is not buildable/modifiable/readable using Debian main since it
requires Adobe Flash.
FYI, upstream agreed to change the pseudo public domain license into
an MIT one (expat):
http://math.hws.edu/javamath/
Thanks everyone for comments/suggestions.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Francesco Poli
invernom...@paranoici.org wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:10:26 -0700 Steve Langasek
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:05:56 +0200 Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
FYI, upstream agreed to change the pseudo public domain license into
an MIT one (expat):
http://math.hws.edu/javamath/
This seems to be great news! :-)
I hope the new license (Expat/MIT) applies to all the files in the
package
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:10:26 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:01:45AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
That's not my understanding of the issue under consideration: more
details are included in my own analysis [1].
Yes, because as usual your analysis is way out in
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 05:05:27PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
I am working on the package for Java Components for Mathematics
(#667923). Some files are distributed with a clear public domain type
license:
This source code file, and compiled classes derived from it, can
be used
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 11:29:31 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 05:05:27PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
[...]
Clearly §2 is meant to distinguish derived work from original work.
However in our case, this means this package will have to have its
name change whenever we
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:01:45AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 05:05:27PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
Clearly §2 is meant to distinguish derived work from original work.
However in our case, this means this package will have to have its
name change whenever
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:01:45AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 05:05:27PM +0200, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
Clearly §2 is meant to distinguish derived work from original work.
However in our case, this means this package
Hi all,
I am working on the package for Java Components for Mathematics
(#667923). Some files are distributed with a clear public domain type
license:
This source code file, and compiled classes derived from it, can
be used and distributed without restriction, including for commercial
use
On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 17:05:27 +0200 Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
Hi all,
Hi Mathieu,
thanks for taking this issue seriously.
I am working on the package for Java Components for Mathematics
(#667923). Some files are distributed with a clear public domain type
license:
This source code file
* Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org [110120 15:51]:
Here is for instance most of the content of the copyright file of the
ncbi-tools6 package:
Copyright:
The NCBI toolkit has been put into the public domain, completely unfettered:
PUBLIC DOMAIN NOTICE
// To the extent possible under law, X x...@xxx
// has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this work.
Is this wording valid to be considered as Public Domain?
Thanks
--
José Carlos García Sogo
js...@debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo jcs...@gmail.com writes:
Is this wording valid to be considered as Public Domain?
It's rather difficult to effectively place a work in the public domain.
Copyright laws nowadays are extremely sticky in their applicability, and
it's hard to avoid that.
Try the Creative
* Bernhard R. Link:
* Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081104 21:29]:
Word on the street is that you can't effectively disclaim warranty
while putting something in the public domain.
Well, as we are discussing the German POV, as German you cannot disclaim
warrenty effectively at all as far
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 14:25 +, MJ Ray a écrit :
Also, I'm disappointed that WTFPLv2 is so long. [...]
I'm no longer sure whether this is a joke.
What made you think this was a joke to begin with?
I don't know. I thought it might be
Cyril Brulebois [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WTFPL (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/) to the rescue?
As I understand it, that also doesn't work for German residents
because the recipient doesn't have to accept the lack of warranty.
Expat-style seems safer to me.
Also, I'm disappointed that WTFPLv2 is so
Le samedi 15 novembre 2008 à 14:25 +, MJ Ray a écrit :
Also, I'm disappointed that WTFPLv2 is so long. Why do people need to
care about Sam Hocevar's name, address and permission to change it?
It seems obviously below the creative threshold for copyright...
I'm no longer sure whether
2008/11/3 Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[...]
This also doesn't disclaim warranty,
which might be dangerous for someone distributing programs.
Is there actually any evidence (ie., court decision) to support this?
Cheers,
--
Jens Peter
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] (05/11/2008):
You can't make something PD in Germany, that just doesn't work with
our laws.
You should also NOT create new licenses / new words for things, that
makes it just unneccessarily complex, for example if people want to
bundle stuff together. Even if
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ben Finney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why have the free license as fallback?
I advise you to simplify: Work *with* the fact that you've got
copyright,
and license the work accordingly.
After all this seems to be the best,
although I
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with authors not being able to give up
their moral rights. Why do you think this needs fixing?
Some people clearly want to be able to. The OP for example.
--
bye,
pabs
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081103 19:50]:
Can I as a German use the following Public Domain-declaration-text,
if I want the result to be dfsg-free?
I, the creator of this work,
hereby release it into the public domain.
This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible
but I fail to see what a
I hereby place this work in the public domain.
fails to do.
In Germany there is no possibility to waive copyright.
You neither can give it to somebody other nor to the public.
So this attention is possibly void, and it's unsure, what a random German court
would decide
* Paul Wise:
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with authors not being able to give up
their moral rights. Why do you think this needs fixing?
Some people clearly want to be able to. The OP for example.
Why wouldn't it be
* Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081104 21:29]:
Word on the street is that you can't effectively disclaim warranty
while putting something in the public domain.
Well, as we are discussing the German POV, as German you cannot disclaim
warrenty effectively at all as far as I do understand
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [081104 21:09]:
but I fail to see what a
I hereby place this work in the public domain.
fails to do.
In Germany there is no possibility to waive copyright.
You can give licenses. You cannot give up authorship. There is no
direkt translation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you have the option to decide on a license, it's probably far
simpler to *retain* copyright as per default, and grant the
recipient a do-just-about-anything license like the Expat license
Is there any problem with the by default Public Domain Declaration
effectively disclaim warranty
while putting something in the public domain.
References please?
Do you contend that still holds true for works that are licensed
without fee?
--
\“To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make |
`\you something else is the greatest
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PS: What's wrong with using a Mail-Followup-To: header?
(That's “header field”. Remember, folks: an email message has, as
specified in RFC 2822, exactly *one* header, consisting of multiple
fields.)
I can see two reasons:
It's non-standard. It is not
I don't know of any default Public Domain Declaration. There are
countless variations, with none of them being common enough IME to
warrant default.
_by_ default, not default.
Why have the free license as fallback?
I advise you to simplify: Work *with* the fact that you've got
copyright
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why have the free license as fallback?
I advise you to simplify: Work *with* the fact that you've got
copyright,
and license the work accordingly.
After all this seems to be the best,
although I like the Idea to give up copyright.
So do I. I encourage both
On 11558 March 1977, jfr fg wrote:
Can I as a German use the following Public Domain-declaration-text,
if I want the result to be dfsg-free?
I, the creator of this work,
hereby release it into the public domain.
This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible,
I grant any
Can I as a German use the following Public Domain-declaration-text,
if I want the result to be dfsg-free?
I, the creator of this work,
hereby release it into the public domain.
This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible,
I grant any entity the right to use this work for any
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can I as a German use the following Public Domain-declaration-text,
if I want the result to be dfsg-free?
I, the creator of this work,
hereby release it into the public domain.
This applies worldwide.
In case this is not legally possible,
I grant any entity
.
The Creative Commons group is working towards CC0 - a public domain
dedication with a twist of license grant for those jurisdictions where
it isn't possible to waive copyright. Hopefully it will serve well
until those jurisdictions are fixed.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0
http
* Paul Wise:
The Creative Commons group is working towards CC0 - a public domain
dedication with a twist of license grant for those jurisdictions where
it isn't possible to waive copyright. Hopefully it will serve well
until those jurisdictions are fixed.
I don't see anything wrong
* jfr fg:
Can I as a German use the following Public Domain-declaration-text,
if I want the result to be dfsg-free?
Yes, but the work won't be public domain after that. It's likely that
it will be interpreted by the courts as granting non-exclusive
exploitation rights to everyone
Please excuse the thread necromancy. Hopefully it's better to
demonstrate that I've searched the archives than not :-)
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[regarding an attempt to formulate a generally-applicable copyright
declaration achieving the effect of public domain]
The author
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For works that are not a script, or that have copyright holders
who are not an author, would this be a further improvement:
The copyright holder of this work hereby grants irrevocable
permission to any party who may
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For works that are not a “script”, or that have copyright holders
who are not an “author”, would this be a further improvement:
The copyright holder of this work hereby grants irrevocable
permission to any party who may have access to it to threat
Mohammad Derakhshani wrote:
This Urdu translation is made by Ahmed Rida Khan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Rida_Khan
Although the author died in 1921, I am not sure if the translation is in
the Public Domain.
Probably. First, the work was translated in 1910 [1] and India
apparently
On 21/11/2007, Arnoud Engelfriet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mohammad Derakhshani wrote:
This Urdu translation is made by Ahmed Rida Khan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Rida_Khan
Although the author died in 1921, I am not sure if the translation is in
the Public Domain.
Probably
is in
the Public Domain.
I would like to know if this translation is eligible for being merged to
free/non-free repositories of Debian.
Would you please kindly guide me in this issue?
Regards,
Mohammad
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here
might have any ideas for improving the wording of the following license
header:
#!bin/bash
#
# Let this be known to
posted mailed
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Ben Finney wrote:
Perhaps the statement should be granting the recipient all rights
otherwise reserved to the copyright holder.
Maybe it's better to reformulate it as a non-assert instead of
a license. There's more than just the exclusive rights.
Ben Finney wrote:
Perhaps the statement should be granting the recipient all rights
otherwise reserved to the copyright holder.
Maybe it's better to reformulate it as a non-assert instead of
a license. There's more than just the exclusive rights.
To the extent permitted by law, the copyright
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
of: The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the
author(s) place no restrictions on this script's
On 9/28/06, Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about modification and distribution?
To be more explicit you could say 'usage, modification, or distribution.'
--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 9/28/06, Ben Pfaff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What about modification and distribution?
To be more explicit you could say 'usage, modification, or distribution.'
Since, as investigation into copyright laws outside the US has found,
even
On 9/26/06, Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would just recommend to anyone who wants to PD something to just put
a 'No Rights Reserved' license, as it is legally unambiguous and works
in pretty much all jurisdictions.
Do you have any example of such a 'No Rights Reserved' license?
I
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
of: The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible, the
author(s) place no restrictions on this script's
On 9/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
of: The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
domain. In jurisdictions where this is not legally possible
On 9/26/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The standard replacement for this problem is something along the lines
of: The author(s) of this script expressly place it in the public
domain
Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no
bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here
might have any ideas for improving the wording of the following license
header:
#!bin/bash
#
# Let this be known to all concerned: It is the specific
...
What about:
The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Le Monday 25 September 2006, à 16:21:24, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
What about:
The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain.
As yet said on this list, this notion of (and the words) public domain
is not common to all countries and more where it exists it can
cut the ribbon
opening this to the free-for-all of opinions...
What about:
The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain.
Regards,
-Roberto
Looking through the list archives, I saw that it was recently stated here
that the wording you just suggested may
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:01:51 +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote:
On 9/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Le Monday 25 September 2006, à 16:21:24, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
What about:
The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain.
As yet said
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:43:22 -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
PS-Please fix your mutt and/or terminal config, as the subject line should
read:
public domain, take ∞
not:
public domain, take ?$B!g
Never mind, as it appears that UTF-8 interoperability between the Debian
mailing lists
1 - 100 of 239 matches
Mail list logo
