On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 05:55:16PM +0200, Pieter Verberne wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 08:09:41AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > The only section of copyright that isn't surrendered by the ISC license > > (also often mistakenly called the BSD) is authorship. > Right. > > > As an example, I like to give away my code for people to study and play > > with. The only thing I "demand" is credit for that piece of code. The > > reason I do not abandon that right is because at some point in my life I > > might need to use my open source work as a resume or as a reference. > Keeping authorship for a resume sounds like a somewhat good reason > to me. I think you could also use public domain code for a resume, > but that may have it's downsides. My question is something like: is > keeping copyright worth putting the annoying license in every file?
Yes. > > > All files require a copyright and license notice. > True, but is the name of the license, or the name + URL enough? Than you > could replace the whole ISC license with just the line like: > # This file is ISC-licensed. What if there is an updated ISC license? then which one is it? > > This would make one reason for using public domain less; It won't safe > lines in textfiles. public domain is not properly defined in the framework of the law. I really have no idea what you are arguing (but going by your name you are just being dutch!).
