Well, it's "public domain" then, which is fine as long as you don't mind Corporation X incorporating and selling your code.
Often, a simple copyright notice saying "this notice must accompany all subsequent versions of this code" is better than nothing. Sean On Jan 19, 2008 12:46 AM, Iain Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I'll do that, but for now it's for anyone to use. If you make > > >> something amazing from it, credit me in the readme ;) > > > > > > I don't want to get into a discussion about the pros and cons of > > > GPL v3 but I would much prefer to see an MIT or BSD style licence. > > > Can I put in a plea for dual licensing to keep everybody happy? > > > > Well I have to say that Iain's licence seems so much more simple, > > understandable and easy to use :-) > > > Yes, the previous discussion is an example of why I don't > automatically stick licenses on my code. Maybe everyone else has read > the relevant open source licenses in detail and weighed up the pros > and cons of each, but I haven't and it's unlikely I'll ever be bored > enough to do so. > > At the end of the day, aren't we all just trying to advance each > other's understanding? And maybe get a mention on El Reg ;) > > I'm not going to sue anyone for using a code snippet I wrote one evening. > > Iain > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
