Re: todo list (was: Re: [PROPOSAL] lifecycle release)

Peter Donald wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:24, Leo Sutic wrote:
> 
>>I think this is standard practice internationally. A copyright
>>notice is *not* needed for copyright protection. You get that
>>automatically.
> 
> 
> yep (well almost - it depends on your country) - but that has nothing to do 
> with what I am talking about. But without a license no user can use the file 
> (well thats depends on place in the world actually). Explicitly stating 
> incorrect facts in a "contract" when you know the facts to be incorrect is a 
> little bit different.

The copyright year is not a fact in a contract. The *license* is one 
thing, the copyright is another.

The Apache License 2.0 will make this distinction more obvious and solve 
our issues once and for all.

Stefano.