Trent W. Buck writes: > Hmm, apparently what's important is that licensing is UNAMBIGUOUS.
A better word is *explicit*. The terms might intentionally be ambiguous, as in "GPL version 2 or any later version as published by the Free Software Foundation". > The BEST way to do this is by adding a declaration to each file, > but conceivably we could have a file in the top directory simply > saying "unless otherwise specified, all files in this repository > are licensed under the terms of GPL2 or higher, with <the openssl > exception>." This is a bad idea, as it is likely that downstream users of *part* of the work will be lazy, and in this way those parts will become separated from the relevant licensing language. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
