> On 01/09/07, David H. Lynch Jr. <dhlii@comcast.net> wrote:
quoted text
> >     The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright
> > notice, not the license itself,
> 
> That is entirely false.
> 
> If the file has a copyright on it, unless it is otherwise noticed, you
> cannot simply do whatever you wish with the file.
> 
> The moment you remove the licence is the moment you make the code
> nonfree (e.g. non-compatible with any free or open-source licence).
> 
> If instead of removing the licence you put your own licence under a
> copyright statement of someone else, well, that simply constitutes
> fraud -- it's no different than quietly changing the first page of a
> legal document after the document is already signed and approved.

There are simpler reasons to not remove licenses statements, as will
become clear in a moment:

Here's a pop question:

Which of these two licences grants more rights?

a.
		Copyright 2006 Theo de Raadt.

b.

		Copyright 2006 Theo de Raadt
	
		You may use or distribute this file without
		modifications.

The answer is b.  The first licence grants NO RIGHTS AT ALL, and
retains them all for the author!

David, I truly recommend you go study at least a few minutes of
copyright law, heck, even at wikipedia if you are short on time.