Re: [mh] License notices in the docs

Either is acceptable to me: one master license statement somewhere in 
the top level code dir, or the GPL statement in each file -- assuming 
that is the license everyone agrees to.

I think things ended up being the way they are today, mostly in each 
file, due to the loosely collaborative nature of MH.  That, plus I 
expect most people probably really don't care too much about licensing!


On 2021-01-01 6:11 a.m., Giles Godart-Brown wrote:
>
> I see that in some of the older Item definitions there is a licensing 
> clause;
>
> <snip>
>
> This program 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.
>
> This program 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 this program; if not, write to the Free Software 
> Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 
> 02110-1301, USA.
>
> </snip>
>
> This even occurs twice in some docs, but not at all in others, would 
> it be OK to concoct a single Licensing page that applies to the whole 
> suite  and point to it from the  landing page.
>
> This not my area of expertise, so need help
>
> Giles
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/misterhouse-users
>


________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from this list, go to: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/misterhouse-users