> I'd certainly be fine with putting the license in a single file and
> referring to that at the top of each source file, instead of
> duplicated elsewhere; Roy Fielding argued against this with Apache
> code because it'd make it easier for someone to accidentally not
> follow the license, he claimed (imagine someone getting a .c file
> but not a copy of LICENSE). Thoughts?
(I have read Greg Stein's response.)
I am uncomfortable separating the license from the code in this case.
While it should be legally sound, I think it raises practical problems
no matter how we do it.
If we reference a file, then the source code could too easily become
separated from the file, and people wouldn't know what rights they
have been granted.
If we reference a URL, then collab.net could change what comes up at
that URL, creating a big sticky mess. (However unlikely this is under
current management, it could still happen, and part of the point of
open source is that you aren't beholden to the continued goodwill of
the owner of the source code's copyright rights.) Or collab.net could
disappear, and people wouldn't know what rights they have been
granted.
I realize that GPL'd code separates the license terms from the source
code. But the GPL is an extremely well-known, standard license; it's
sufficient to say "the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation" and, for now and well into
the conceivable future, no one will have any trouble tracking down a
copy of the license rights they have been granted, even if the code
has gotten separated from the copy of the license from the
distribution. For better or for worse, the collab.net license does
not enjoy that status.
(The GPL is also huge, textually speaking, compared to our license, so
there are more compelling reasons to keep it separate.)
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:15 2006