On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Aaron Trevena wrote:
> The simplist would be 
> # Name - brief description. (c) Copyright 2001 A Nother #
> # This is free software available under the same license as perl itself 
> # This sofwate comes with NO WARRANTY. For more information see URL or
> The NO WARRANTY bit is fairly important, as is specifiying uunder what
> license it is made availab.e - common are Public Doman (not teh default,
> default is all rights reserved), BSD & artistic license (fairly
> similar) and the GNU GPL and LGPL.

The artisitic license isn't worth the paper it's printed on...

> I habitually use the GPL, I have only recently realised how much of a pig
> it can be to keep a derived work compliant. It will now take as long to
> audit the changes made to mny derived work of mwforum as it did to do some
> of the debugging. This is a good thing and a bad thing - It does mean you
> keep more control over your work, but at the same time it means that there

If you want to keep control, use something like the Apache-modified BSD
license. This allows you to keep the name ***** for your scripts.

> is little reward for doing a major piece of work on somebody elses code,
> even if you replace 99% of it, its still entirely their copyright and not
> yours, so you essentially hand over your moral rights to waht you have
> done.

Hmmm.... I would have thought that how much of the work you replace
defines how tightly bound you are by the license of the previous work.

> I could be wrong of course - buit that is how it seems.

I don't know. IANAL.


Matthew Byng-Maddick   Home: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  +44 20  8980 5714  (Home)
http://colondot.net/   Work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44 7956 613942  (Mobile)
standards n.:     The principles upon which we reject other people's code.

Reply via email to