On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 05:48:24AM +0530, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 16:19 -0600, Callum Lerwick wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 13:32 +0100, Matej Cepl wrote: > > > Which was the reason I was shocked DJB released qmail under public domain > > > and why I would always prefer at least MIT/X/BSD-no-appropriation/CC-au > > > always. IIRC, sqlite is the only substantial software which is under > > > public domain and there is a reason for that. > > > > IANAL, but doesn't this mean he's effectively released it under *every* > > license ever written? :) Are we going to have GPL and BSD forks battling > > it out now? > > Its possible, but Public Domain means something closer to "no license" > than "every license". We could see forks battling it out, but somehow, I > doubt this will happen. Right - really "no license". Public Domain means anyone is free to take it and use it however they want - including pulling into another app and re-licensing it. One of the ways people can contribute to GNU projects is to explicitly assign copyright of code to the FSF. The other way is to disclaim your work into the public domain, at which point the GNU project maintainer may pick it up and include it in a GNU-licensed application. Changes to the code will carry the FSF copyright, and the whole will carry the GNU license. (see parted/libparted/labels/gpt.c for such an example if you're curious). -- Matt Domsch Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
