+1 from me on everything David said (quoted below for convenience)
cheers,
Matija
On četrtek, 12. marec 2020 22:19:38 CET, David A. Wheeler wrote:
I would prefer another option NOT in the poll (and thus have
not voted): Treat it as just another license statement. There
are multiple ways this kind of “uncopyrightable” assertion is
made, and I think that specific form should be captured as a
license statement.
New entries should be created for at least the “CC Public
Domain Mark” and the situation where someone in the US
government does it as part of official duties & doesn’t claim a
copyright. There’s a discussion going on here:
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/988
Treating it like “everything else” means there are no special
cases for SPDX, *and* you get finer-grained information.
For those who object & say that “there is no license”, well,
“license” is just synonym for “permission”, and in this case the
permission is granted by the way the legal systems work. So it’s
a permission granted by the underlying mechanisms of law ☺. I
think the *users* of SPDX will appreciate the simplicity of
*not* needing another special case.
--
gsm: tel:+386.41.849.552
www: https://matija.suklje.name
xmpp: [email protected]
sip: [email protected]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#1300): https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/message/1300
Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/71881689/21656
Mute #poll: https://lists.spdx.org/mk?hashtag=poll&subid=2655439
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/spdx/leave/2655439/1698928721/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
