This is the mail archive of the
glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
[Bug localedata/11213] localedata licencing issues
- From: "cjlhomeaddress at gmail dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: glibc-bugs at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 13:56:04 +0000
- Subject: [Bug localedata/11213] localedata licencing issues
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-11213-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11213
--- Comment #7 from Chris Leonard <cjlhomeaddress at gmail dot com> 2012-07-15 13:56:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Explicit PD alone is *not* enough, it's non-free: it lacks an explicit
> copyright licence, and since the Berne Convention, all works are automatically
> under copyright protection. Saying a work is PD isn't possible in all
> jurisdictions.
>
> If you absolutely must insist on PD, I really insist on you including a
> paragraph similar to the following too:
>
> .\" In countries where the Public Domain status of the work may not be
> .\" valid, its primary author hereby grants a copyright licence to the
> .\" general public to deal in the work without restriction and permis-
> .\" sion to sublicence derivates under the terms of any (OSI approved)
> .\" Open Source licence.
If "Public Domain" like is a goal, is there any problem with CC-zero
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
or does CC-0 fail to overcome the absense of public domain status in certain
juridictions?
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.