Hi,
On 10/24/2010 10:44 PM, Mateusz Paprocki wrote:
Hi,
On 24 October 2010 22:40, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz
<mailto:ond...@certik.cz>> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Aaron S. Meurer
<asmeu...@gmail.com <mailto:asmeu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> So, I am opposed to this proposal. I think that such things are
a waste of space, make updating the copyright at the year change
more difficult, and, if they are really long (like they are
sometimes) can scare people away from the source code.
I too am strongly opposed to this; from a practical point of view it's
just irrelevant clutter. Keep the license stuff in the LICENSE file
where it belongs.
...
If no license information in a file == public domain, then we will
have to do this. If we will have to do this, then author of every file
is "SymPy Development Team", so adding those two lines can be done
automatically (as well as changing years).
Does anyone have a source for "no license information in a file ==
public domain"?
Because as far as far as I know, that statement is false, and no license
information in a project would just mean that no license is granted, so
in the worst case (= LICENSE file doesn't apply) the user just wouldn't
get the rights the BSD license grants him, right? And iirc LICENSE files
are perfectly ok.
I am not a lawyer. Also note that I'm from Germany, your local law might
or might not be different.
For example, here in Germany it is actually impossible to release
something into the public domain directly.
Felix
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
