[task #16374] Using LICENSE instead of COPYING

[Mohammad Akhlaghi]

Follow-up Comment #3, task #16374 (project reproduce):

Another reply from John Darrington:


I think that COPYING has to be a better choice than LICENSE for a number of
reasons.

* A licence is a legal concept.  Most users of software are not lawyers, so
will not
  understand what it means.  Many *think* they understand it, but in most
cases it is
  a serious misunderstanding.  Moreover, we don't want users to dwell on the
juristic
  matters.  We just want them to be aware of what they are permitted to do.

* Whilst it is true that the GPL is about more than copying - to be precise,
it is about
  copying, modification, distribution and combinations of those three - these
are all
  variations on the general theme of copying.

* The GNU coding standards have for many years said that packages should put
the GPL
  in a file named COPYING.

* I think there are many more people are going to want to copy GNU software
than are who
  are going to want to (sub)license it (which is not allowed).

* A licence is simply something which permits what would otherwise be illegal.
It
  could refer to many things.  For example a copyright licence, a patent
licence,
  a television licence, a driving licence ...   Naming the file COPYING, on
the other
  hand, is much more specific.  She immediately knows this file contains
matters relating
  to copying the software.  LICENSE on the other hand could mean many
different things
  For example in GNU Radio it might be assumed to be about licensing to
communicate on 
  various radio frequencies.

* COPYING has been the convention for so long that people are used to it now.

* LICENSE is a verb.  The correct spelling of the noun would be LICENCE.




    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16374>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.nongnu.org/