Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Jacob Adams writes ("Re: sct public domain"):
> > Ok that makes sense. Wasn't sure if public domain was more
> > complicated but clearly not.
>
> "Public domain" is very complicated. It means different things in
> different places :-(. But happily here the authors hve not only said
> public domain, but also given a clear separate permission. So this is
> fine.
The licensor even managed to avoid the often problematic “use” (which
has a long history of confusion about which actions are “use” and which
are not).
The license to “do as you wish” is, AFAIK, relatively free from
problematic or restrictive interpretation :-)
> > It doesn't seem like a conversion like that is copyrightable though.
> > Do I still credit him or is this definitely not copyrightable?
>
> We should credit people who have contributed, even if copyright law
> doesn't ncecessarily require it. So: I would state the facts, as you
> do here.
Agreed. Since we can do as we wish, I would encourage that we record
attribution information when it's available, because it is surprisingly
common to need that information years later.
--
\ “I'm having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I feel like |
`\ I've forgotten this before sometime.” —Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
