"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <c...@debian.org> writes: > I agree, the files (but the documentation) don't seems copyrightable, > which is different as PD, so new keyword "NO"?
To my eye, ‘License: NO’ has exactly the wrong connotation (“the recipient has no copyright license to this work”). The obvious reaction to that would be “okay, then we can't have it in Debian”. Perhaps a better one would be ‘License: not-required’. This would say exactly what we mean, and prompt the right question: On what basis does the maintainer claim no license is required for this work? The continuation lines of the field could then be used to answer that question. -- \ “Programs must be written for people to read, and only | `\ incidentally for machines to execute.” —Abelson & Sussman, | _o__) _Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87tyn1w2w9....@benfinney.id.au