Re: Re: "License": public-domain

[Emmanuel Vincent]

Please on right now

Re: "License": public-domain

[Gabriel F. T. Gomes]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:13:18 +0100
Ghislain Vaillant  wrote:

>Le 14 sept. 2017 9:45 AM, "Narcis Garcia"  a
>écrit :
>
>>In my humble opinion, Lintian should mark a warning when detecting
>>this. This could make some developers and/or packagers to reconsider
>>chosen license.
>
>And why should they? CC0 or Unlicense have clear terms. Problems arise
>when upstream only specifies public domain without an explicit
>definition for it.

This fact (that the problem with public domain only happens upstream,
and that Debian deals well with it) could also be documented in the new
FAQ (I wouldn't know how to write it properly, so I'd like to ask for
someone to do it).  At least for me, this information is new.

Re: "License": public-domain

[Ghislain Vaillant]

Le 14 sept. 2017 9:45 AM, "Narcis Garcia" <debianli...@actiu.net> a écrit :

In my humble opinion, Lintian should mark a warning when detecting this.
This could make some developers and/or packagers to reconsider chosen
license.


And why should they? CC0 or Unlicense have clear terms. Problems arise when
upstream only specifies public domain without an explicit definition for it.





__
I'm using this express-made address because personal addresses aren't
masked enough at this mail public archive. Public archive administrator
should fix this against automated addresses collectors.
El 13/09/17 a les 17:46, Don Armstrong ha escrit:
> 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.
>
>

Re: "License": public-domain

[Narcis Garcia]

In my humble opinion, Lintian should mark a warning when detecting this.
This could make some developers and/or packagers to reconsider chosen
license.




__
I'm using this express-made address because personal addresses aren't
masked enough at this mail public archive. Public archive administrator
should fix this against automated addresses collectors.
El 13/09/17 a les 17:46, Don Armstrong ha escrit:
> 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.
> 
> 

Re: "License": public-domain

[Arturo Borrero Gonzalez]

On 13 September 2017 at 18:25, Shengjing Zhu  wrote:
> FWIW, it's in https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#public_domain
> Maybe this draft can be put in a more official place now?
>

Probably yes, but no strong opinion on that.
Probably better contact the people who are in charge of that document.

Re: "License": public-domain

[Arturo Borrero Gonzalez]

On 13 September 2017 at 18:15, Don Armstrong  wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
>> if this question is common enough, perhaps it worth creating a simple
>> wiki page to put all this information in there?
>
> If someone could fill out
> https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Public_Domain that's probably the
> best bet. Feel free to steal anything from my response.
>

Done:

https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Public_Domain

Feel free to improve it.

Re: "License": public-domain

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:
> if this question is common enough, perhaps it worth creating a simple
> wiki page to put all this information in there?

If someone could fill out
https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#Public_Domain that's probably the
best bet. Feel free to steal anything from my response.

-- 
Don Armstrong  https://www.donarmstrong.com

Miracles had become relative common-places since the advent of
entheogens; it now took very unusual circumstances to attract public
attention to sightings of supernatural entities. The latest miracle
had raised the ante on the supernatural: the Virgin Mary had
manifested herself to two children, a dog, and a Public Telepresence
Point.
 -- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p228

Re: "License": public-domain

[Arturo Borrero Gonzalez]

On 13 September 2017 at 17:46, Don Armstrong <d...@debian.org> wrote:
> 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.
>


Thanks Don, this information is valuable.

if this question is common enough, perhaps it worth creating a simple
wiki page to put all this information in there?
Name suggestion: FAQ about Public Domain and Debian.

We could even reuse Nico's concerns as entries for the FAQ.

Re: "License": public-domain

[Don Armstrong]

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

"License": public-domain

[Nico Schlömer]

Hi everyone,

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]. Specifically, public
domain is _not_ open source [3]. In fact, it's not a proper license at all.
I suspect that this is mostly due to an upstream misunderstanding of the
term "public domain"; some people mistake it for "open source".

Since Debian is usually quite careful when it comes to legal issues, I'm
wondering what the official view point is here. Should there be a lintian
error if the "license" is public domain and a copyright holder is
specified? Should "public-domain" perhaps be prohibited in general?

Cheers,
Nico

[1]
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/debian-science/packages/mumps.git/tree/debian/copyright#n52
[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html
[3] https://opensource.org/node/878