Re: [directory-discuss] Are license notices mandatory?

[bill-auger]

On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 08:37 +0200, David Hedlund wrote:
> It does not say anything
> about which programs are released that way.
> Therefore, simply including a copy of the LICENSE with some code
> does not release the code under the terms of the LICENSE.

as with the previous thread that is referring to the GPL

one popular licence for example mention that is covers "... this software and
associated documentation files collectively referred to as: "(the "Software")"

the license file itself is clearly not "The Software"; so that license is
plainly indicating in the broadest sense, essentially: "everything in this
package other than art assets" - this is why people like that license - drop in
in and its done - a real no-brainer - and most often leaves the art assets
unlicensed, though i presume most authors of those programs do not realize that
or care

i am not defending that practice - RMS makes some important points there - but
just to be clear that no license makes it mandatory to declare the license in
each file and some licenses have the tacet effect of discouraging that practice

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part