[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
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