Re: Licence guidance

Greetings.

On 27 Sep 2018, at 3:48, Anthony Carrico wrote:

> On 09/26/2018 05:32 PM, Deren Dohoda wrote:
>
>> I put a package up but it has no license info in the code. I would 
>> add
>> one which is the most permissive possible that wouldn't cause 
>> conflict.
>> I guess this is BSD? MIT?
>
>
> In this case, don't license your code, declare it to be in the public
> domain.

That doesn't necessarily solve the problem, or at least not 
internationally.

In UK law, for example, 'public domain' means simply 'known to the 
public', and doesn't have a link to licence information.  Also, it seems 
that there isn't the notion of 'unowned (intellectual) property', so 
that 'I place this in the public domain' could at most be interpreted as 
a vague disavowal of interests.  That is, it would be an absence of a 
statement of a licence, rather than a statement of an absence of a 
licence.

Thus the BSD licence is probably the most permissive thing that's still 
unequivocally recognisable as a licence.

Best wishes,

Norman


-- 
Norman Gray  :  https://nxg.me.uk

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/[email protected]
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.