On 29-05-2013, at 1:31 PM, "David T. Lewis" lewis@mail.msen.com wrote:
I think that we do need an explicit statement that code is MIT licensed. The people who care about that stuff care about it a lot, and it messes things up for e.g. Linux distro maintainers if we don't have explicit MIT licensing declared.
I was taking a look around the code currently in the tree and a lot of it has no mention of licensing, or somewhat variant looking licensy words. My RISC OS files appear to be the only ones with consistent mentions of MIT-L and that's only because I ran through them all earlier this year!
tim -- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Useful Latin Phrases:- Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter concinnatur! = Those green pants go so well with that pink shirt and the plaid jacket!