Thanks for the analysis, it was basically what I was thinking about but hadn't got around to working out a way of describing the problem with public domain.
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 at 05:06, Baptiste Beauplat <lykn...@cilg.org> wrote: > I'm somewhat unsure about adding this license to dh-make because the > Public domain license does not seems to be a wildly used choice for > writing software. > It's not used a lot because its a bit vague. All three of us could write some license that we think is public domain but it is worded differently. The problem for dh-make is, which one is the "right" one? For GPL-2 for example, there is a canonical version of the license. SPDX lists several licenses that have public domain in their name. A quick search on https://sources.debian.org show that barely ~1000 > packages mention "public-domain" in they copyright and most of the time, > it only apply to a small part of the source code. > My guess is they all look different too. > It would make sense to me to only ship most common licenses in dh-make, > and thus skip the public domain license. What do you think? > dh-make already has a blank license and a custom license (where you feed it the copyright file). I'm not convinced putting in a best-guess for public domain license will be helpful. - Craig
