[Clipart] WTFPL [Was: Re: debian logo]

[Seb]

This raises a  good point. Public Domain doesn't exist everywhere. The 
are jurisdictions where things MUST have some sort of a license.

I'm sure some of you have seen the /. stoy on licences today too. So I 
think we can all agree that the WTFPL implies "Public Domain" and is an 
adequate substitute for Public Domain where it's not an option.
---

   DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
                     Version 2, December 2004

  Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam at hocevar.net>

  Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
  copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
  as the name is changed.

             DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
    TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

   0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.

----

Seb.
PS: I'm only half kidding here...

On 05/20/2010 10:18 AM, chovynz wrote:
> For your information.
> Involved cliparts
> http://www.openclipart.org/search/?query=debian
>
> http://www.openclipart.org/detail/38653
>
>
>
> 	<Chovynz> 	Hello, I am a librarian for Open Clipart Library. I have a 
> potential problem I'd like sorted out. OCAL is a public domain clipart 
> library, in other words, people can do anything they like with the 
> cliparts. There is at least one clipart on OCAL that has the "open" 
> debian swirl. I've read the licencing terms and it's not clear to me 
> if we can have it on the public domain OCAL site. Could...
>
> 	<Chovynz> 	...someone confirm? You can read more about public domain 
> here. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/, the clipart 
> in question is here : http://www.openclipart.org/detail/38653
>
> 	<themill> 	!debian logo
>
> 	<dpkg> 	extra, extra, read all about it, debian logo is 
> http://www.debian.org/logos , http://wiki.debian.org/DebianLogo . See 
> also <debian logo font>.
>
> 	<Chovynz> 	I've read it. I need personal help here.
>
> 	<themill> 	Chovynz: requiring that things are "public domain" is 
> pretty crazy. The logo is provided under a free, permissive licence.
>
> 	<Chovynz> 	Yes. It is pretty crazy, however public domain, can be 
> used for any purpose, including defamatory, and or commercial use. Is 
> the debian logo licence compatible with public domain as I understand it?
>
> 	<Chovynz> 	As for requiring public domain as crazy, that's not my 
> call. :) I'm just following site procedures.
>
> 	<themill> 	Chovynz: public domain is (a) not a licence (b) doesn't 
> exist in many jurisdictions and (c) things cannot be "placed into" the 
> public domain in many more jurisdictions.
>
> 	<themill> 	Chovynz: if you guys want to pick a debatable and 
> US-centric bit of law, then you'll have to find some USian lawyers to 
> help you with it. The logo may be freely used, but it is not placed 
> into the public domain by any stretch of the imagination. In your 
> example, it's placed into a new creative work... you can open that can 
> of worms yourself another time.
>
> 	<Chovynz> 	themill: Correct, that PD is not a licence. It is a waiver 
> of licence. Does Debian want that on this logo? My gut says we can't 
> have it, even if it is a free and permissive licence that debian logo 
> is released under.
>
> 	<themill> 	Chovynz: you may do better to ask for opinions on either 
> the debian-legal or debian-project mailing lists.
>
> 	<Chovynz> 	Thanks for your help themill. :)
>
> 	<themill> 	Good luck!
>
>
>
> One day, I'll follow this up on the debian mailing list.
>
> -- 
> Cheers
> Chovynz
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clipart mailing list
> clipart at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart
>