Dear debian-legal-members,

I am wondering, whether you consider 'The Unlicense' [0] to be
DFSG-compliant? On the OSI-mailing list [1] has been a discussion
arguing, that this license model is

a) not global
b) inconsistent and
c) unpredictable in its applicability

Searching debian-legal, however, I did not find any conclusive
discussion about this. So, what do you think about this? Can projects
under the Unlicense be safely included in Debian's package archives?

Thanks already in advance for clarifying this issue.

Best regards,
Jan
---
[0] https://unlicense.org/
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170301020915/https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/001386.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 07:33:45AM +0100, Jan Gru wrote:

Dear debian-legal-members,

I am wondering, whether you consider 'The Unlicense' [0] to be DFSG-compliant? On the OSI-mailing list [1] has been a discussion
arguing, that this license model is

a) not global
b) inconsistent and
c) unpredictable in its applicability

I think I'd agree with all of the above, especially in light of the comments you refer to below. "Public domain" is a difficult concept eg in the US.
[It may be that some Federal employees place code into the public domain
by default but they are the only ones].

The author disclaims all interests for themselves: given that the
UnLicense includes a verbatim copy of the MIT licence - just attribute
the fact that the code was under the UnLicense, note that you are
relicensing the code to the MIT licence and go from there?

In countries that recognise copyright laws - almost all of them - a full disclaimer of copyright is not possible.

this just my opinion. If allowable, it reduces the set of unknown, unenforceablelicences by one and produces greater legal certainty.

This is explicitly different to a Github case where there is no discernible licence and therefore no permission to do anything with the code.

All the very best, as ever,

Andy Cater

Searching debian-legal, however, I did not find any conclusive
discussion about this. So, what do you think about this? Can projects
under the Unlicense be safely included in Debian's package archives?

Thanks already in advance for clarifying this issue.

Best regards,
Jan
---
[0] https://unlicense.org/
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170301020915/https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/001386.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Dear Andy,
dear list members,

thank you very much for your reply and your thoughts on this issue.
I want to pose two concrete follow/up questions if you allow.

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 13:00:08 +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:

I think I'd agree with all of the above, especially in light of the comments you refer to below. "Public domain" is a difficult concept eg in the US.
[It may be that some Federal employees place code into the public domain
by default but they are the only ones].

The author disclaims all interests for themselves: given that the
UnLicense includes a verbatim copy of the MIT licence - just attribute
the fact that the code was under the UnLicense, note that you are
relicensing the code to the MIT licence and go from there?

In countries that recognise copyright laws - almost all of them - a full disclaimer of copyright is not possible.

this just my opinion. If allowable, it reduces the set of unknown, unenforceablelicences by one and produces greater legal certainty.

This is explicitly different to a Github case where there is no discernible licence and therefore no permission to do anything with the code.

All the very best, as ever,

Andy Cater

Do you think that Unlicense can not be considered DFSG?
Could code under the Unlicense be accepted for Debian's package archives
as it is the case with `tvnamer` [0]?

Thank you very much in advance for a short reply.

Best regards
Jan

---
[0] https://sources.debian.org/src/tvnamer/2.5-1/UNLICENSE/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 06:58:19AM +0100, Jan Gru wrote:

Dear Andy,
dear list members,

thank you very much for your reply and your thoughts on this issue.
I want to pose two concrete follow/up questions if you allow.

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 13:00:08 +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:

I think I'd agree with all of the above, especially in light of the comments
you refer to below. "Public domain" is a difficult concept eg in the US. [It may be that some Federal employees place code into the public domain
by default but they are the only ones].

The author disclaims all interests for themselves: given that the
UnLicense includes a verbatim copy of the MIT licence - just attribute
the fact that the code was under the UnLicense, note that you are relicensing the code to the MIT licence and go from there?

In countries that recognise copyright laws - almost all of them - a full disclaimer of copyright is not possible.

this just my opinion. If allowable, it reduces the set of unknown, unenforceablelicences by one and produces greater legal certainty.

This is explicitly different to a Github case where there is no discernible licence and therefore no permission to do anything with the code.

All the very best, as ever,

Andy Cater

Do you think that Unlicense can not be considered DFSG?

It probably disclaims enough that the author has no rights that they want
to assert. Probably DFSG in my opinion, then, but not a licence I could
suggest to anybody. Relicensing might be cleaner.

Could code under the Unlicense be accepted for Debian's package archives
as it is the case with `tvnamer` [0]?

If it's already in, then someone will have made that determination for themselves previously and the FTP team will have accepted it - so theirs probably no problem with the licence.

Thank you very much in advance for a short reply.

Best regards
Jan

---
[0] https://sources.debian.org/src/tvnamer/2.5-1/UNLICENSE/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)