[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: copyright info... actually wanted!

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: copyright info... actually wanted!
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:58:14 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 01:45:13AM +0200, Joseph Wakeling wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > Please re-read my request.  This is not what I asked for.
> 'As a separate patch, feel free to add the "this manual is under
> the FDL" as a comment to the top of any relevant files in
> Documentation/.'
> I took 'all relevant files' to mean all files in the manual, re-reading
> your request I now presume you mean just the top-level file for each
> manual ... ?


> Is there any particular reason why these per-file license statements are
> bad?

They're not necessary.  Of course a sub-file will follow the same
license as the main file.  Adding the whole licensing paragaph to
every file is pointless.  A single sentence will do, identifying
the manual is belongs to.

Also, note that this was the least important request.  The only
thing that's important IMO is getting the copyright years.  Adding
a licensing paragraph in the source (as opposed to having the
correct license printed in the manual, which is already done) was
the second item, and any kind of per-file notice was the third.

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]