Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I just downloaded the source for sqlite and I can't find the licensing, except for this bit in main.c:

    ** The author disclaims copyright to this source code. In place of
    ** a legal notice, here is a blessing:
    **
    ** May you do good and not evil.
    ** May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
    ** May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
    **

    Call me old-fashioned, but I like real licenses like GPL, BSD or the Artistic. I really don't understand one "disclaims copyright" y

    • Well DBD::SQLite is AL/GPL combo (like Perl), and yes, the author means "public domain" that's what disclaiming copyright effectively means.
      • Public domain cannot be public domain without explicitly stating this and he'd better really mean it when he says it as it means he has no rights to it henceforth. CPAN got into a bit of a wicket over this sort of thing so I'm with JJ on this one...tell the guy to get real and either state it is public domain or get a real license. Implied public domain doesn't fly.

        • Public domain cannot be public domain without explicitly stating this

          Disclaiming copyright is explicitly stating that. There's nothing implied about that. I can't say whether or not it meets a certain legal requirement in its form -- and I am not sure if any of us can; if so, I'd like to know the source, because I am interested -- but it is quite explicit.

          • by jjohn (22) on 2002.02.19 11:53 (#4729) Homepage Journal

            Disclaiming copyright is explicitly stating that.

            Pudge-daddy, there is a language we speak called English and using the rules of that language, your analysis of the denial of copyright seems cogent. However I raised the issue not because the author's intentions were unclear in English, but they are unclear in the strange Bizzaro language of legalese. In legalese, even the meaning of the word "is" can be argued.

            The author is being cute, but I think we'd all be happier with "THIS SOFTWARE IS PUBLIC DOMAIN" or "I 0W3NZ THE COPYRIGTH" or even "THIS SOFTWARE IS COPYLEFTED." I totally hate licensing issues, so I prefer licenses that I'm already familiar with. Aren't you?

            • I don't care about legalese, no. I am happier with *perhaps* legally vague things that clearly demonstrate intent. If the lawyers don't like it, but everyone knows what it means, that makes me all the happier.
            • OK, enough already. Try this link. [freshmeat.net].