svn commit: r421549 - in head: . Mk

[Torsten Zuehlsdorff]

On 09.09.2016 08:37, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 06:29:50AM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 08:26:31AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>> NONE is not intended to be a fallback because one hasn't set yet the LICENSE
>>> knob[.]
>>>
>>> I do like the 'NONE' word, it sounds accurate and straight forward to me,
>>> but I'm not native, if its sounds misleading we can still have a better
>>> word if one proposes.  But clearly imho UNDEFINED/UNCLEAR/UNKNOWN are
>>> representing what we aiming at here.
>>
>> I agree with Mark, UNCLEAR is a nicer and having least unwanted connotations
>> word.
>>
> What connotation? if the sources have NO license at all, for me it is not
> unclear, it clearly has no license? am I missing something?

Depending on your location this could be not possible and a license or a 
restriction is enforced by - for example - the local law.
(This ignores more complex cases like a license is not transferable 
between law-structures. Common case in Germany is that "Public Domain" 
is not possible like known in many other countries. A German developer 
could never choose this license, even if he declares so)

So a project without defined license could have a license (without 
knowing it) or could be restricted by something. I would prefer UNKNOWN.

Greetings,
Torsten