On 13 May 2012 06:36, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/05/12 00:18, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
While the license sounds like it is "Public Domain" that can cause problems in various places. Also in trying to find the code that is referenced.. (snook.ca) I could not find a copy to see what its license was. The second site doesn't recommend that code anymore but recommends a GPL2+ updated version.
It looks more like WTFPL with attribution clause. I don't see why such license would be a problem.
As far as I know it is not a problem if it is clear. It is when the license isn't clear that it can become a problem.. especially when the author put one thing down and meant something else. It may only occur in 100 times, but that become more problems than being clear in the first place.