On Nov 29, 2007 2:22 PM, Aaron Griffin email@example.com wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 2:09 PM, Dan McGee firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 1:49 PM, Damir Perisa email@example.com wrote:
why is PD not a standard licence entry for us? it should not be custom, since it is a quite standard way to licence something.
Give me some standard text and I'll throw it in there.
We went over this somewhere.
There's no such thing as a public domain license. It flat out doesn't work. Not only is it not a license, but public domain means different things in different countries. From the "WTFPL" faq:
- Isn't this license basically public domain?
There is no such thing as "putting a work in the public domain", you America-centered, Commonwealth-biased individual. Public domain varies with the jurisdictions, and it is in some places debatable whether someone who has not been dead for the last seventy years is entitled to put his own work in the public domain.
My tongue-in-cheek response was a bit too cryptic. I meant to stress the "standard text" part which is non-existent. I know that we cannot and will not include a "license" for something like this, because public domain is not a license at all. Thus I figured my suggestion for the 'none' license was acceptable, but that got shot down quickly...