Thanks, that is in line with my views as well, but I'm also not a lawyer. It would be great if one of the devs could also concur with this to alleviate any concerns.
On Nov 10, 6:09 pm, "Ray Krueger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are all the files in the memcached 1.2.6 distribution licensed under > > the BSD license and if so why do some not refer to the BSD license in > > the comments at the top of the source files while others do? > > I'm not one of the devs, but declaring the license at the top of every > file is just noisy. Licenses are a matter of declaration. The project > is declared as BSD, as it says on the website and in the project > itself in the LICENSE file. Having it at the top of every file is > redundant at that point. Though, like I said, I'm not one of the devs, > I'm not a lawyer either though :P
