*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 02/10/2001 at 15:26 Ben Bucksch wrote:
>Simon P. Lucy wrote:
>
>>On 22/09/2001 at 14:14 Simon P. Lucy wrote:
>>
>>>I'm going to try this one more time. A long while ago I suggested a
>>>mechanism that would allow the multiple licencing of source files whilst
>>>ensuring the avoidance of doubt in any particular use.
>>>
>>And a deafening silence is the result, not even a 'its rubbish go away'.
>It speaks volumes I think.
>>
>I think that only refering to a license (not adding any more blurb; e.g.
>"This file can be used under the MPL.") makes sense. I see no reasons to
>add all that stuff at the top of each file. But I am not a laywer...
>
>I see no reason for your compile-time flag, though, as it won't change
>anything in the resulting binary.
Not the binary no, the binary result has never been an issue. The compile time flag
does two things, it identifies which licence the licencee intended and it includes the
actual licence language in any intermediate file. Yes no one will ever see it unless
they do a listing output, but that isn't the point. As always the point is to
unambiguously define the licence used.
The environment variable though is the critical part of this.
Simon
