Agree...
Think the same. The name explains itself.
Public Domain should be public.
---
- °v° Marcelo Cavalcante Rocha / Kalib
- /(_)\ Usuário Linux #407564 / Usuário Asterisk #1148
- ^ ^ GNU-Linux - Livre, Poderoso e Seguro
- TUX-CE Member - www.tux-ce.org
- Archlinux-br Developer Team -
http://archlinux-br.org-
http://www.marcelocavalcante.netOn Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Paulo Matias <
matias@...>wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Daenyth Blank<
daenyth+arch@...<
daenyth%2Barch@...>>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 13:02, Hugo Doria<
hugodoria@...> wrote:
> >> I am with Allan here.
> >> +1 for 'custom'.
> > +2
> >
>
> I'd not agree here. Isn't public domain exactly the absence of a
> license? When something is public domain you have no obligations at
> all. Even citing the author's name isn't required. You can do what you
> want with a public domain work.
>
> So I can't see why should we require to ship a different public domain
> declaration for each public domain package. I think something like
> 'none' or 'PD' without the obligation to install anything to
> /usr/share/licenses would be the best way to go here.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Paulo Matias
>
