Re: ocaml, QPL and the DFSG : QPL 3b argumentation.

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:

>> And if you don't want to deal with binaries there, then rip that
>> clause off and just say:
>> 
>> "You must include an appropriate, accurate, and complete copyright
>> notice on each source file."
>
> But what is an accurate, appropriate and complete copyright notice ? 

There are lots.  The statement I wrote is intentionally definitive,
not proscriptive.  It tells you what must be the case, not how to do
it.  It's like functional programming for licenses.

For any (copyright notice, work) pair, it is clear whether it is
accurate, appropriate, and complete.  True, it provides no guidance
about how to write one -- but that's intentional.  In most cases,
adding your own name to the notice in modified files is probably the
right choice.  But the license shouldn't tell you to do that, just
describe what must happen and let the end-user or modifier do it.

That way, the license easily adapts to unanticipated technologies or
freedoms, or to unanticipated uses of the work.

-Brian

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu