need to be addressed. When I look at the page source for a Web app
(specifically, picolisp-gosper), I see two things:
the release. As near as I can tell, these served files exactly match the
ones in the picolisp release.
<canvas id="$testID" width="800" height="600"
onmousedown="csMouseDn(this, event)" ontouchstart="csTouchDn(this,
event)" onmousemove="csMouseMv(this, event)"
ontouchmove="csTouchMv(this, event)" onmouseup="csMouseUp(this)"
<input type="submit" name="*Gui:-1" value="C"
onmousedown="inBtn(this,1)" onblur="inBtn(this,0)" class="submit"
I believe it would be best to view (1) as library files, which are
covered under the release license (hopefully the same one as in
COPYING). On the other hand, (2) should be viewed as separate developer
code making use of said libraries. The library files should be marked
with appropriate licensing headers. The developer code which calls it
need not be under the same license, or any license, at least in this
case, as your license is not full copyleft in the sense that the GPL
licenses are. In any case, I don't think the existence of (2) eliminates
the need for proper licensing of (1).
On 03/13/2017 10:14 PM, Alexander Burger wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 03:57:00PM -0800, Christopher Howard wrote:
>> only see "Copyright so and so" and will have to assume that it is
> code, and makes absolutely no sense to be used (or parts of it) is isolation.
> Should we put a licence on every line?
> ♪♫ Alex