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.
Of course you can! At the very least under both the MPL and the GPL if the
distributed binary has any kind of a copyright notice it must tell users
about the license and how to get the source. As a developer you've got to
pick which set of notification rules you're going to follow, and which set
of source distribution rules.
from MPL 3.6 ("Distribution of Executable Versions")
> You may distribute Covered Code in Executable form only if the
> requirements of Section 3.1-3.5 have been met for that Covered Code,
> and if You include a notice stating that the Source Code version of the
> Covered Code is available under the terms of this License, including a
> description of how and where You have fulfilled the obligations of
> Section 3.2. The notice must be conspicuously included in any notice in
> an Executable version, related documentation or collateral in which
> You describe recipients' rights relating to the Covered Code
From Gpl 2c)
> If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run,
> you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the
> most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an
> appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty
> (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may
> redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user
> how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself
> is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your
> work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
-Dan Veditz
