On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 11:38:54AM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > 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.
I agree; I'd definitely prefer explicit copyright and license declarations at the top of each file. There seemed to be a lot of aversion to this in #darcs (IRC), so I added the postscript above. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
