--TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 04:17:31PM +0900, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 04:14, Chad Perrin <code / apotheon.net> wrote:
> >
> > I'm kinda disappointed to see stuff like License.txt, which is both:
> >
> > * not really stand-out and standardized the way LICENSE has become
> 
> Agreed.  LICENSE was not invented here, though, so that may be a
> factorsigh*

Are you referring to the NIH principle of bad engineering in general, or
are you referring to some "here" in particular (such as Apple's software
ecosystem)?

Anyway . . . I've said before that NIH syndrome has no place in open
source software development:

    http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=460

. . . and generally, if you're looking for a license file, that means
open source software development.  It's not like we're talking about the
official ECMAScript standard (which sucks); it's just a commonly accepted
practice that helps make things easier for everyone involved.  All open
source projects -- even "proprietary" source, if the source is publicly
available somehow -- should come with a COPYING and/or LICENSE file at
the very least, and not screw with the naming convention too much.  Such
things, along with a README file, should be among the first things
committed to any publicly accessible project repository.

That's my take on it, at least.

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

--TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk2wNz8ACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKV+IwCgjWTPr0wriAIM9Rs5FIcVQC33
eVYAoLFgYyOLd2+OThGWQpPGUjn+fPEi
MQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/--