On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 01:21:15PM +0100, Norman Gray wrote: > > 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.
One of the Creative Commons licences is equivalent to the concept of public domain we eem to want, formulated as a licence for jurisdictions where "public domain" isn't a concept. -- hendrik -- 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+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
