Thanks to everyone who has provided input so far. It has been very helpful.
>>>>> "Nic" == Nic Suzor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] Nic> I agree. I just feel that it needs to be clear that the package is Nic> not distributed on the same terms, and that Debian is not providing Nic> the same warranties against litigation. I don't think that we need Nic> an express explanation to that effect, but simply delimit the CPL Nic> from a statement that the package is in the public domain in the Nic> copyright file. OK, so what does everyone think of the following statement in the copyright file? [This program] is in the public domain. The original upstream source is released under the Cypherpunks anti-License (CPL), which places the program in the public domain, and includes additional clarifying text. Neither Debian, nor Software in the Public Interest, nor any of their agents specifically make the same pledges as are contained in the license. The complete text of the license follows below: [etc.] Is that too wordy? or unnecessary? Suggestions? -- Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred.
pgpLAmhYi7Kkb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
