On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:21:24 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 10:56:27AM -0700, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote: >> Greetings! I'm fully aware that the opinions stated on this list have no >> bearing on anything, but I would still like to ask whether anyone here >> might have any ideas for improving the wording of the following license >> header: >> >> #!bin/bash >> # >> # Let this be known to all concerned: It is the specific intent of the >> # author of this script that any party who may have access to it always >> # treat it and its contents as though it were a work to which any and all >> # copyrights have expired. >> # >> >> I thought about "s/author/sole author/" but decided against it as not >> generic enough. I can see how deciding against it may make it rather >> unclear as to whose intent is being expressed, but I think that would be >> rather moot anyway in the event of any dispute. I now cut the ribbon >> opening this to the free-for-all of opinions... >> > > What about: > > The author(s) of this script expressly place it into the public domain. > > Regards, > > -Roberto
Looking through the list archives, I saw that it was recently stated here that the wording you just suggested may be legally meaningless, and in at least one English-speaking jurisdiction, amounts to gibberish. PS-Please fix your mutt and/or terminal config, as the subject line should read: public domain, take ∞ not: public domain, take ?$B!g PPS-I am not a subscriber to any of the Debian lists, and post only via Gmane. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
