On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Michael Wojcik apparently wrote: > Assuming Gerard's script is entirely original work, why > bother with a license? I'd just put it in the public > domain. A license is only necessary if the author wants > to restrict rights, and for a relatively small, simple > program that hardly seems necessary.
I agree with Michael's core sentiment. But I suggest it points to the MIT license, popular among academics. Why? 1. Licensing is unavoidable. You at least must *explicitly* place the code in the public domain. 2. Some people believe that outside the US it is difficult or impossible to actually place code in the public domain. (I do not agree, but there it is, and IANAL.) Cheers, Alan Isaac
