cvs commit: fptools/libraries/base LICENSE

[Manuel M. T. Chakravarty]

"Simon Marlow" <simonmar@microsoft.com> wrote,

> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 06:54:40AM -0700, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > > simonmar    2002/06/20 06:54:40 PDT
> > > 
> > >   Modified files:
> > >     libraries/base       LICENSE 
> > >   Log:
> > >   Add license from Andy Gill's HTML library
> > 
> > Except for capitalization, this is exactly the same licence that
> > Parsec is distributed under, i.e. BSD minus the 
> > non-endorsement clause.
> > Can we rationalize?  And doesn't copyright belong in the source file,
> > rather than the LICENSE file?  The way things are going, we could have
> > quite a lot of very similar licences in libraries/base/LICENSE.
> 
> Perhaps, but IANAL and I figured that concatenating the licenses was
> most likely to be correct.  The idea is that libraries/base should be
> BSD-licensed, but I'm not sure what to do about the copyrights.  The BSD
> license requires the copyrights to be reproduced in a binary
> distribution, so shouldn't all the copyrights be collected in one place?

IANAL either, but I also think that is the correct thing to
do.  I have seen similar things in other multi-license
packages.

As for whether the copyright belongs in the source.  It is
usually encouraged to put it there (at least an abridged
version), but you don't have to.  Copyright is nothing that
you have to claim.  Only if you want other people to be able
to copy your stuff, do you have to explicitly mention it.

Cheers,
Manuel