general copyright question

[Saaa]

> Often, this means that --help or some option advertised by --help 
> (like --version or even --license) might spit out the notice.

But lets asume you would use multiple sources with these kind of licenses.
spitting out multiple notices is possible althought it would be kind of 
long.
Take Derelict; If you spit out the notice for every sourcefile you used that
would end up being hundreds of lines of notice.

And how do you make clear that the license isn't the license of your 
program?
Because as I understand it: the program using the sourcecode doesn't need
to have the same license (otherwise commercial use wouldn't be possible)


>
> And, yes, you want the notice and copyright in the documentation, and many 
> times even in the source files.  If there's no documentation provided with 
> the program, consider including a "license.txt" - or as above, spitting 
> out such output with a switch or menu option.
>
> My couple cents, anyway... this is a pretty standard clause and for the 
> authors' interpretations (which are what matter most really) you should 
> ask them directly.
>
> -[Unknown]
>
>
> Saaa wrote:
>> A lot of open source projects (on dsource) use this clause in their 
>> copyright notice:
>>
>> ...
>> Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>> ...
>>
>> What exactly does it mean for a binary program to reproduce a copyright?
>>
>> What should be written in the documentation?
>> Something like:
>> readme.txt [
>> .. documentation ..
>>
>> ??
>>
>> < insert copyright from X> ]
>>
>> and what if there is no documentation?