On December 19, 2015 2:55:35 PM EST, Ramana Kumar <ram...@member.fsf.org> wrote: >On 20 December 2015 at 03:02, Mark Holmquist <mtrac...@member.fsf.org> >wrote: > >> The GPL, for all the good it does in the world, is a more complex >license >> to administer and enforce. You must include license headers in all of >the >> files in your project, for example, which may not be a viable option >for >> some, or may be a step that others ignore. >> > >It's a common misconception that the GPL is somehow distinguished in >requiring you to include license headers in all the files in your >project, >because the FSF explicitly recommends doing so. However, this is not a >GPL-specific recommendation. See >http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoticeInSourceFile. You should >be >doing that with any free license. > >I'd say the GPL is distinguished in that its stewards have done their >research and care about the purpose of a copyright license for >promoting >software freedom, and the legal mechanisms for implementing it. Others >(like the WTFPL author) seem to think licensing is just a statement of >philosophy or just for fun, and not a legal tool with a specific >purpose.
Thank you for saying what I've been failing to say this whole time, but meant. -- Some people have a way with word. Unfortunately in my case, Word had his way with me.