http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
so far we used "custom" and installed the included license file. now this file has been removed from the source.
what should i do now(no file/use old file/create a txt file with a link to the license url)?
-Andy
On Nov 29, 2007 2:01 PM, Andreas Radke a.radke@arcor.de wrote:
http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.htmlwhat should i do now(no file/use old file/create a txt file with a link to the license url)?
Usually what I do is just include a text file in CVS for those that don't have a license in the tarball - so just copy the old one and check it in.
On Nov 29, 2007 1:01 PM, Andreas Radke a.radke@arcor.de wrote:
http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
so far we used "custom" and installed the included license file. now this file has been removed from the source.
what should i do now(no file/use old file/create a txt file with a link to the license url)?
-Andy
Maybe 'custom:none' or just 'none' ?
-Dan
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Travis Willard wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 2:06 PM, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 1:01 PM, Andreas Radke a.radke@arcor.de wrote:
http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
so far we used "custom" and installed the included license file. now this file has been removed from the source.
what should i do now(no file/use old file/create a txt file with a link to the license url)?
-Andy
Maybe 'custom:none' or just 'none' ?
That's assuming that sqlite is now released with absolutely no license whatsoever, which I don't think is the case.
for the license field use 'custom:public domain' and add the license file as Travis suggested.
On Nov 29, 2007 2:06 PM, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 1:01 PM, Andreas Radke a.radke@arcor.de wrote:
http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
so far we used "custom" and installed the included license file. now this file has been removed from the source.
what should i do now(no file/use old file/create a txt file with a link to the license url)?
-Andy
Maybe 'custom:none' or just 'none' ?
That's assuming that sqlite is now released with absolutely no license whatsoever, which I don't think is the case.
Thursday 29 November 2007, Eric Belanger wrote: | On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Travis Willard wrote: | > On Nov 29, 2007 2:06 PM, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote: | >> On Nov 29, 2007 1:01 PM, Andreas Radke a.radke@arcor.de wrote: | >>> http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html | >>> | >>> so far we used "custom" and installed the included license | >>> file. now this file has been removed from the source. | >>> | >>> what should i do now(no file/use old file/create a txt file | >>> with a link to the license url)? | >>> | >>> -Andy | >> | >> Maybe 'custom:none' or just 'none' ? | > | > That's assuming that sqlite is now released with absolutely no | > license whatsoever, which I don't think is the case. | | for the license field use 'custom:public domain' and add the | license file as Travis suggested.
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.
- D
On Nov 29, 2007 1:49 PM, Damir Perisa damir.perisa@solnet.ch wrote:
Thursday 29 November 2007, Eric Belanger wrote: | On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Travis Willard wrote: | > On Nov 29, 2007 2:06 PM, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote: | >> On Nov 29, 2007 1:01 PM, Andreas Radke a.radke@arcor.de wrote: | >>> http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html | >>> | >>> so far we used "custom" and installed the included license | >>> file. now this file has been removed from the source. | >>> | >>> what should i do now(no file/use old file/create a txt file | >>> with a link to the license url)? | >>> | >>> -Andy | >> | >> Maybe 'custom:none' or just 'none' ? | > | > That's assuming that sqlite is now released with absolutely no | > license whatsoever, which I don't think is the case. | | for the license field use 'custom:public domain' and add the | license file as Travis suggested.
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.
-Dan
On Nov 29, 2007 2:09 PM, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 1:49 PM, Damir Perisa damir.perisa@solnet.ch 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.
Um, no
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.
On Nov 29, 2007 2:22 PM, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 2:09 PM, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 1:49 PM, Damir Perisa damir.perisa@solnet.ch 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.
Um, no
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...
-Dan
On Nov 29, 2007 3:51 PM, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote:
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...
It wasn't shot down - I said that it's "assuming sqlite is released with no license whatsoever". I don't understand this public domain stuff, so when I looked on their website, I saw something that seemed to be license-ish in nature, and so I also added "I don't think this is the case"
If public-domain == no license whatsoever, then license=('none') is probably the way to go, and the "none" license should be recognized as syntactically correct.
On Nov 29, 2007 4:13 PM, Travis Willard travis@archlinux.org wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 3:51 PM, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote: [...] license=('none') is probably the way to go, and the "none" license should be recognized as syntactically correct.
I agree, there are a lot of random pieces of software and documents that aren't released with any license.
Just a quick reminder though, strictly according to U.S. copyright law, anything that hasn't released itself under another license is a copyrighted work, not public domain.
// jeff
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 04:19:24PM -0500, Jeff Mickey wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 4:13 PM, Travis Willard travis@archlinux.org wrote:
On Nov 29, 2007 3:51 PM, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote: [...] license=('none') is probably the way to go, and the "none" license should be recognized as syntactically correct.
I agree, there are a lot of random pieces of software and documents that aren't released with any license.
Just a quick reminder though, strictly according to U.S. copyright law, anything that hasn't released itself under another license is a copyrighted work, not public domain.
I was going to point that out. You can't assume that a random piece of software or document that is released without a license is public domain. Most countries have mandatory copyright (I don't know the proper term for it).
Jason
arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org