Ivan Shmakov wrote: > >>> Or just omit it. > > >>> AFAIK, a specific notice of copyright isn't particularly meaningful > >>> any more. > > [...] > > >> The notices like this are very convenient for the ones ``curious'' > >> of the conditions under which the file can be used. > > >> They're of exceptional value for the free software, since they > >> explicitly allow the code to be modified and distributed. Without > >> such a notice (either in COPYING, or in the file), the file cannot > >> be either modified or distributed at all. > > > Oh, I'm not against including the GPL boilerplate: "This program is > > free software ...". > > > But adding an explicit "(C) <date> <author>" line isn't useful, IMHO. > > Actually, I'm in doubt whether the GPL notice will have any > legal value without the proper ``(C)'' line. Unless someone > relieve me of this concern, I'd prefer to put this line as I've > been doing before.
Just how many times do I have to explain it to you? If you don't understand copyright, consult a lawyer. -- Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
