An idea - request for comments

[Nigel Head]

Actually, having thought and done some research I feel like going for the Artistic
License for any future stuff I may distribute. It doesn't prescribe commercial use
but I've decided that was a Wrong Thing to want to do anyway. It does disallow
selling the software (as opposed to using it commercially) which is what I really
meant to say; apart from that it's Open Source certified and I can actually
understand it -- as opposed to the GPL which reads too legalese for my small brain!

I assume that, given the conditions, one file of  "license.txt" in any package is
enough? No need for headers etc.

Thanks for the advice,
Nigel.

I wrote:

> There's no licence statement in the distribution at all for now -- my intention
> is that anyone can use the contents anyway they want, for non-commercial
> purposes, providing they keep a reference to the original source. Oh yes, and I
> can't take any responsibility for errors.