On 02/10/2001 at 20:41 Ben Bucksch wrote: >Simon P. Lucy wrote: > >>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. >> >But to whom define, if only you will ever see it? It will end up with >the current scheme: If you are sued, you claim that you used a >particular license, but you cannot prove it.
Because evidence can be used for the original intent. Its not hard to show in a particular archive that a batch file exists to set the licence environment one particular way. > >>The environment variable though is the critical part of this. >> >If that makes you feel better, create a file at the top-level of the >Mozilla tree, stating "I use this source under the terms and conditions >ot the MPL license only.\nSimon P. Lucy". Yes that would be nice, but without some official support it is pointless. The licence is a file based licence, any one individual file can gainsay some other extraneous file which is NOT part of that licence. No amount of commentary, verbiage or anything else has the same weight as the licence itself which is why the clarity should be in the licence itself and not the mish mash of nonsense we have right now. I wouldn't bother trying anymore Ben, its a dead horse. :-) Simon
