On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Felix Kaiser <felix.kai...@fxkr.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/24/2010 10:44 PM, Mateusz Paprocki wrote: > > Hi, > > On 24 October 2010 22:40, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Aaron S. Meurer <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.
This was clarified by Robert. The LICENSE file is enough. Ondrej -- 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.
