>>>>> Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>>> Or just omit it.
>>> AFAIK, a specific notice of copyright isn't particularly meaningful
>>> any more.
[...]
>> The notices like this are very convenient for the ones ``curious''
>> of the conditions under which the file can be used.
>> They're of exceptional value for the free software, since they
>> explicitly allow the code to be modified and distributed. Without
>> such a notice (either in COPYING, or in the file), the file cannot
>> be either modified or distributed at all.
> Oh, I'm not against including the GPL boilerplate: "This program is
> free software ...".
> But adding an explicit "(C) <date> <author>" line isn't useful, IMHO.
Actually, I'm in doubt whether the GPL notice will have any
legal value without the proper ``(C)'' line. Unless someone
relieve me of this concern, I'd prefer to put this line as I've
been doing before.
> And it's impossible for a program to accurately determine the date
> and author.
It's a known hassle. Unfortunately, the price of not caring
about the stuff like this properly is the freedom.
> So I don't see any point worrying about the problems involved in
> creating that particular line if there's no point in even having it.
[...]
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
