Beman Dawes writes: > Even something in the public domain should have a copyright, and a > license that says it is in the public domain.
Wrong. Something that is in the public domain is not copyrighted, and no license is needed to use it. If you intend for other people to use public-domain code you have written, then you should include an explicit statement that it is, in fact, in the public domain. But this is neither a copyright nor a license; it is, to the contrary, an assurance that you will not claim a copyright at some future date. > The lawyers that I have talked to view a file as poison if it isn't > covered by someone's explicit copyright and license. What about PCCTS? It has no copyright, and is widely used and included in Linux distributions. > In other words, a file silent about copyright and license is seen as a > time bomb What about a non-copyrighted work that clearly states that the work has been placed in the public domain? BTW, you failed to answer the original question: is there any reason why a license "must require that the license appear on all copies of the software source code"? Why do I, as an author, have to place any requirements at all on those who wish to use my code? _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
