> Fenn, > > Good idea, but slightly wrong approach. Instead of "if anyone is > certain...", the approach should be to audit the system.
that is a good idea, I myself have done thise more than once, but I have to admit I kept no records. (I still plan to write a longer email in reply to Fenn ..) > Someone should create a list of files (possibly in a spreadsheet). > Then, > every file should be examined and certified by the examiner to have > a > license incorporated within the file. The list of files, the name of > the > auditor of each file, and the type of license of each should then be > published and appended to the product. If there are non-source > files, or > files that cannot have embedded license information, a separate > license file > should be part of the product. I would suggest a naming convention > something > like foo.exe has a license file foo.exe.license, in that case. this is probably overkill for emc2. There are only a couple of images which can't have the info embedded, the rest have some commenting system of sorts. > I've often said, "You can't determine how many angels can dance on > the head > of a pin by debating it; you have to get out there and count them." > I think > this is an example of the same principle. > > Ken Regards, Alex ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
