Re: "License": public-domain (original) (raw)

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

Reply to: