Re: License

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

Michael Meeks <michael helixcode com> writes:

> Hi Maciej,
> 
> On 9 Oct 2000, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > 1) None of the header files claim any copyright at all, this is a
> >    serious bug.
>      
>         Hmm, yes, we should put little headers in the headers.

The IDL files too (some already have it).
 
> > 2) None of the copyright notices in the C files state the license.   
> 
>         Hmm,
> 
> > 3) Most other major bits of the GNOME project have the full top of
> >    file comments (gnome-libs, gtk+ etc).
>   
>         And gnumeric doesn't and bonobo doesn't.                         
>                    
> > 4) Richard Stallman may be overly paranoid about legal issues, but his
> >    paranoia has served the free software community well. I suggest his
> >    advice about how best to apply the LGPL should be given more weight
> >    than a bit of convenience.
>   
>         I care passionately about free software, and I have masses of
> respect for Richard Stallman; perhaps you have never heard me speak. I
> also care a lot about code cleanliness, and I'm not convinced that adding 
> huge licenses everywhere really helps anyone. The Linux kernel follows the
> policy we use in Bonobo, to my mind it is cleaner, and I am not aware of
> any legal abuses of this.

No one suggests adding the whole text of the licence, just 11
additional lines of text that identifies the license terms, disclaim
all warranty, and tell you where to get a copy of the license in case
you got a file separated from the rest of the distribution somehow.

However, code cleanliness is a matter of taste. I'm so used to reading
GNU-style code with the standard header at the top that I find it a
bit jarring when a file leaps right into the code without the
prliminaries. :-)

> > 5) If you still don't like the full top of file comments, how about  
> >    just adding a statement that the license is LGPL, and where to get
> >    a copy of the LGPL.
>   
>         Ask Miguel, he cares about these things as I do and probably has
> more experience with dealing with this FAQ.

I'll leave it to Miguel to make the call. 

I know RMS is very concerned about warranty disclaimer issues, as
authors of non-free so-called "freeware" or public domain software
have been sued over such things in the past (yeah, the US legal system
sucks, but best to protect oneself).

Really, though, this is not a big deal other than adding a copyright
notice to the headers and IDL files that don't have one already.

Regards,

Maciej