Re: Is an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE License (or keyword) needed? #poll
|
> A new poll has been created… I would prefer another option NOT in the poll (and thus have not voted): Treat it as just another license statement. There are multiple ways this kind of “uncopyrightable” assertion is made, and I think that specific form should be captured as a license statement.
New entries should be created for at least the “CC Public Domain Mark” and the situation where someone in the US government does it as part of official duties & doesn’t claim a copyright. There’s a discussion going on here: https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/988
Treating it like “everything else” means there are no special cases for SPDX, *and* you get finer-grained information.
For those who object & say that “there is no license”, well, “license” is just synonym for “permission”, and in this case the permission is granted by the way the legal systems work. So it’s a permission granted by the underlying mechanisms of law J. I think the *users* of SPDX will appreciate the simplicity of *not* needing another special case.
From: spdx@... <spdx@...>
On Behalf Of michael.kaelbling@...
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 5:51 AM To: spdx@... Subject: [spdx] Is an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE License (or keyword) needed? #poll
The U.S. Copyright Office considers some works uncopyrightable "because they contain an
insufficient amount of authorship", e.g. "words and short phrases ... titles ... names", "mere listing of ... contents, or a simple set of directions...", and
blank forms (https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf).
SPDX-License-Identifer: NOASSERTION and SPDX-CopyrightText: NOASSERTION is similarly inappropriate. 1. Yes - an UNCOPYRIGHTABLE License is needed
|
|
|