Slash Boxes
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.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by jjohn (22) on 2002.02.19 8:56 (#4717) Homepage Journal

    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" yet puts this mumbo-jumbo in the header of one's source code. If the author means public domain, he should say so.

    • 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.

          • 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"

            • 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. [].
          • We went around on this with RMS and are welcome to talk to them about it but outside the US 'public domain' doesn't mean jack needs a license and disclaiming a copyright as stupidly as that guy did isn't enough from what I understand. I don't like such things nor am I a lawyer so take it up with the FSF if you care.

            • That's not the issue I was discussing. I was discussing whether or not "disclaming copyright" is the same as "public domain." Whether or not public domain is good or useful is a separate discussion.
              • Disclaiming copyright is not the same as 'public domain' and since 'public domain' has no meaning outside of the US it is probably not useful.

                • Yes, it is the same. Whether or not it has force of law, whether or not it is useful, is another matter, one that I personally don't care about. For all the time we put into trying to get our licenses to be legal, they never go to court. 'Tis a waste of time, mostly.
                  • Public domain must be explicity stated as 'no copyright' is not synonymous with public domain any more than the omission of copyright or license is. It is a legal term whether it interests you or not.