Hi Trent,

Just a quick question for you.  Is it OK if we change the EXAMPLE.sh template
to just "Public domain" instead of the BSD3 boilerplate?

I hope it's not some discussion we've already had that I'm just being too lazy
to search for. :-(

Thanks!

1 patch for repository http://darcs.net:

Sat Aug  7 10:28:47 BST 2010  Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>
  * Suggest public domain for tests by default.
  1. it's shorter
  2. most people probably don't care about the license for their tests


___________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by MessageLabs' Email Security
System on behalf of the University of Brighton.
For more information see http://www.brighton.ac.uk/is/spam/
___________________________________________________________

Attachments

• suggest-public-domain-for-tests-by-default_.dpatch
• unnamed

Hi Eric,

Op zaterdag 07 augustus 2010 11:46 schreef Eric Kow:
> New submission from Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>:
> Just a quick question for you.  Is it OK if we change the EXAMPLE.sh 
template
> to just "Public domain" instead of the BSD3 boilerplate?
> 
> I hope it's not some discussion we've already had that I'm just being too 
lazy
> to search for. :-(

AFAIK, we had it. The outcome was that a BSD license is better than putting it 
in the public domain because putting something in the public domain is legally 
murky.

Googling stuff, looking at http://blog.mises.org/9240/copyright-is-very-
sticky/ or http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/no-rights-reserved.html, it seems 
that many copyright laws do not give you a way to give up the copyright that 
you got automatically.

The Creative Commons Zero license 
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode) is a license that 
attempts to do the same as putting something in the public domain, but 
portably across jurisdictions. It looks a LOT more complicated than the BSD 
license.

Reinier

Eric Kow wrote:
> Just a quick question for you.  Is it OK if we change the EXAMPLE.sh
> template to just "Public domain" instead of the BSD3 boilerplate?

Assuming you're asking for my permission as the author: yes.

If you'are asking whether it's a good idea: it isn't, see

  http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html

That URL also suggests a two-line license declaration; or you might
want the expat license.  I see Reinier also mentions CC0.

  http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt

Note that IANAL... doesn't Darcs have a partnership with a
not-for-profit that offers funding and legal advice?  Suggest asking
them.

On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 03:27:32 +0000, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> That URL also suggests a two-line license declaration; or you might
> want the expat license.  I see Reinier also mentions CC0.

A two-liner sounds the most appealing given that the goal was to
avoid the massive chunk of boilerplate text

>   http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt
> 
> Note that IANAL... doesn't Darcs have a partnership with a
> not-for-profit that offers funding and legal advice?  Suggest asking
> them.

I realise we never made this very clear, but the SFC acts only as a
mechanism for projects such as Darcs to exist as a (part of a) legal
entity.  As far as I understand, it means people have somebody to send
cheques to besides (say), and that as a team, we get to hold on to
money, domain names, hardware.

Getting legal advice is not part of the package; we'd have to seek out
the services of its sister organisation, the SFLC.

-- 
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9

It's not going to work:
http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2010-August/024768.html

Let's hope I don't forget and start the discussion a third time...