On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 00:13:34 -0500 Nathanael Nerode wrote:
[...]
> <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it
> does.>
> <program name> Copyright <year> <copyright holder>
>
> <program name> is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
> License, or (at your option) any later version.
>
> <program name> is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> GNU General Public License for more details.
>
> You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> along with <program name>; if not, write to the Free Software
> Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA
> 02110-1301 USA
I agree on everything you said, with the following comments/questions:
* why do you suggest repeating <program name> everywhere? I think it
makes adapting the notice to different pieces of software less easy (a
differently named GPL'd work can be derived from a previously existing
GPL'd work, you know): I would say
This work is free software; [...]
This work is distributed [...]
[...] along with this work [...]
* why do you put <program name> on the same line as the copyright notice
(and even repeat it when more than one copyright holder exists)?
Isn't
<work name> - <one line to a brief idea of what the work is>
Copyright (C) <year> <copyright holder>
better?
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpqGjgyV6g15.pgp
Description: PGP signature