Re: YAL (Yet another license)
John Hasler wrote:
> Jonathan P Tomer writes:
> > the legal file requirement is potentially problematic (since it
> > forces a particular name)
> I Think it is ok (dumb, but ok). It just requires a particular name
> for one file, not the package.
Not too long ago, we had a discussion about the Crafty developer
forcing the name. I'm wondering if you think it would be o.k. for him
to force the name of only the executable. It would "just require a
particular name for one file, not the package" (to quote you out of
Here is the specific exchange regarding Crafty:
> > I believe you are saying the author can require a different name
> > to be used but cannot specify that name?