Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> writes: > Le Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 02:05:42AM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : > > To my eye, ‘License: NO’ has exactly the wrong connotation (“the > > recipient has no copyright license to this work”). The obvious > > reaction to that would be “okay, then we can't have it in Debian”. > > there would still be no ambiguity
I'm not arguing that there's ambiguity; I'm arguing that the keyword “no” is poorly chosen because it doesn't clearly connote what we want it to. > Would the following paragraphs summarise well the discussion ? > > As a special case, the fist line of the `License` field can be used to > document that a work has no license, and further explanations can be > provided in the continuation lines. The following short names are used: > > [[!table data=""" > `No` | The work is not licenseable. > `PD` | The work has been placed in the public domain. > """]] I think that if we want a meaning of “The work is not licenseable”, or “A license is not needed”, then ‘License: No’ is a poor choice for that since it doesn't clearly suggest what the gloss wants it to. Rather, something like ‘License: Not-Applicable’ or ‘License: Not-Required’ says it more clearly. I propose each of those as a potential keyword for the meaning we're discussing. -- \ “Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.” —Pablo | `\ Picasso | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87aaoswu1f....@benfinney.id.au
