Re: BSD license text

Depends on the license declaration - pasting a licence without attribution is meaningless. It's intent is not to assert a copyright alone, but to assert the License is granted by the appropriate copyright owner. Otherwise it's just a block of text. New BSD text (no attribution inside) plus a non-license included @copyright tag may not be enough. It may look obvious by association, but it's usually just a good idea to make it as obvious as possible. That's why the attribution is part of the License text itself. Best regards, Paddy Pádraic Brady http://blog.astrumfutura.com http://www.patternsforphp.com OpenID Europe Foundation ----- Original Message ---- From: Lorenzo Alberton <l.alberton@quipo.it> To: Pádraic Brady <padraic.brady@yahoo.com> Cc: pear-qa@lists.php.net Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 3:28:17 PM Subject: Re: [PEAR-QA] BSD license text Hi Pádraic, > I think it's fine to paste it right in - for example the New BSD License > needs you to edit it for copyright attribution. I tend to skip the copyright attribution since there's an @copyright tag already in the header block, so that's not really an issue. > It's also very short - > not a huge license like the GPL or revised LGPL. agreed (~20 lines). Still, having it in all the files can be noisy, hence my question. > Does QA have any rules regarding a LICENSE or COPYING file included with > the source code? The only "official" example I see is in the manual: http://pear.php.net/manual/en/standards.header.php which has a note on where you can find the license. Best regards, -- Lorenzo Alberton http://pear.php.net/user/quipo -- PEAR QA Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php