Timeline for Is it OK to put license note that uses "this code/file/work" into a separate file?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 18, 2020 at 8:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 1, 2016 at 1:56 | vote | accept | ZeroUnderscoreOu | ||
| Sep 23, 2016 at 11:02 | history | edited | Zimm i48 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 562 characters in body
|
| Sep 23, 2016 at 10:54 | comment | added | Zimm i48 | You are right for MPL. I edited my answer to clarify all of this. | |
| Sep 23, 2016 at 10:53 | history | edited | Zimm i48 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
refactor my answer
|
| Sep 22, 2016 at 23:54 | comment | added | ZeroUnderscoreOu | I'm not sure, but in case of MPL notice seems like a part of the license. Or is there some legal practice/convention that allows altering notices? | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 10:43 | comment | added | Zimm i48 | This should not be a problem (see also my edit). If you are worried about "this" you can change it. The sentence is not really part of the license itself so it is up to you. In particular, it is very common to find variations of this sentence for CC-BY-SA. | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 10:39 | history | edited | Zimm i48 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
say more explicitely that this is OK
|
| Sep 22, 2016 at 10:00 | comment | added | ZeroUnderscoreOu | Thank you for an answer, but I do know these advices and that I'm somewhat free to choose a place for a notice. I consider "License.txt" in the root folder to be accessable and noticeable (just like "ReadMe.txt"). My confusion is caused by the use of "this" and combination of several notices. | |
| Sep 22, 2016 at 9:52 | history | answered | Zimm i48 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |