On 2007 Jun 29 (Fri) at 17:30:34 +0200 (+0200), DINH Vi?t Ho? wrote: > anyway, if someone use the file somewhere else, the copyright can be > edited > :) > Personally, I think that a up-to-date file named 'COPYRIGHT' or > something like that should be sufficient. (though, I care only about > nice code and good architecture and don't care about boring licence > stuff...).
License stuff may be boring, but its important. Just ask the GPL3 people. Or Tivo. Or Microsoft. Or SCO. (the list goes on and on) The OpenBSD project (which I don't talk for) has a policy of every file has copyright (and license) explicitly in the top of the file. This way it isn't ambigious. I can understand this being boring, but accurate copyright and licensing can and will protect your code. Even if you want to make it as free as possible, you still need to declare it. -- A diplomat is a man who can convince his wife she'd look stout in a fur coat.
