Right. Admittedly, that is not *so* much of a concern when you are looking at code that you have just unpackaged directly from the release... you can infer that the license in COPYING applies to every unlabeled file in the release. (Though, that leaves open potential for confusion and uncertainty.) The JavaScript is a special case because 90%+ of the people who will see/use the JavaScript will receive it from a Web server and, if they inspect the source of the JavaScript, will only see "Copyright so and so" and will have to assume that it is proprietary.
If I ever do a Picolisp Web app I will certainly add the license headers myself if I must. I'm just saying that if *you* guys care about *your* users, you'll want to at least put the license headers on the JavaScript files. The logical place to do that would be once in the official release, rather than having ever developer need to do it independently. I would even go a bit further and suggest making the JavaScript LibreJS compatible: https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/ https://www.gnu.org/software/librejs/manual/librejs.html#JavaScript-Web-Labels As mentioned, I'm willing to help out with this if desired. On 03/13/2017 10:09 AM, Bruno Franco wrote: > I think that what Christopher means is that adding a licence makes the > developer's wishes clear. When you put a permissible licence its obvious > you don't care what people do with the code, but if there's no licence > at all it *could* mean you don't care, or it *could* mean you do care > but just forgot to say it. In the case with no licence, there will be > people who would like to use the code however they want, but stop > because they're not sure the developer would accept it. This is not a > problem with anyone in this community, who knows the code is free to use > for anyone. It is more for people who find the code without knowing > anything about the developer. > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Joh-Tob Schäg <johtob...@gmail.com > <mailto:johtob...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi Christopher, > > You can interpret the: > > Thanks for your concerns! But I still do not see where the > problem is. I don't > care what others do with the code. It is free! > > As make a ~fork~ of it which adds license headers you seem to > desperately want. > > 2017-03-13 7:57 GMT+01:00 Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de > <mailto:a...@software-lab.de>>: > > Hi Christopher, > > > Nevertheless, I would strongly recommend *at least* putting > licensing > > information on the JavaScript files, even if only using the > one-liner > > approach. Since the JavaScript will usually be served through a Web > > server, it will be impossible for Web users to tell that it is > freely > > licensed code. Code with unclear licensing is no better than > proprietary > > code for practical purposes. > > Thanks for your concerns! But I still do not see where the > problem is. I don't > care what others do with the code. It is free! > > ♪♫ Alex > -- > UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de > <mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de>?subject=Unsubscribe > > > -- Christopher Howard, Computer Assistant Alaska Satellite Internet 3239 La Ree Way, Fairbanks, AK 99709 907-451-0088 or 888-396-5623 (toll free) fax: 888-260-3584 mailto:christop...@alaskasi.com http://www.alaskasatelliteinternet.com -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picolisp@software-lab.de?subject=Unsubscribe
