[darcs-users] Licensing and copyright fun.

Stephen J. Turnbull stephen at xemacs.org
Mon Oct 6 02:38:54 UTC 2008

Trent W. Buck writes:

 > Hmm, apparently what's important is that licensing is UNAMBIGUOUS. 

A better word is *explicit*.  The terms might intentionally be
ambiguous, as in "GPL version 2 or any later version as published by
the Free Software Foundation".

 > The BEST way to do this is by adding a declaration to each file, 
 > but conceivably we could have a file in the top directory simply 
 > saying "unless otherwise specified, all files in this repository 
 > are licensed under the terms of GPL2 or higher, with <the openssl 
 > exception>."

This is a bad idea, as it is likely that downstream users of *part* of
the work will be lazy, and in this way those parts will become
separated from the relevant licensing language.

More information about the darcs-users mailing list