add license header

[leonidborisenko]

It would be nice to have Bacon.js file with license included. MIT license requires its distribution with every copy of software [source], so this commit will satisfy license in circumstances of taking single Bacon.js file directly from GitHub and including it in combined/minimized file (like affter using of r.js, almond and Uglify).

Bacon.min.js could also include license (anyway, this license header comment could be easily stripped by user). I can send another PR for that if you're interested.

[raimohanska]

Ok! I'd actually prefer prepending the license to the js file using a grunt task instead of including it in the cs file. That way it could be easily included in the min.js file too, right?

[leonidborisenko]

I have no objections to ditching this PR and adding license banner to JS files only. It will suit my needs. So please close this PR if it will be resolved in other way.

BTW, grunt-contrib-uglify task has preserveComments option:

Turn on preservation of comments.

'some' will preserve all comments that start with a bang (!) or include a closure compiler style directive (@preserve @license @cc_on)

(And this PR contains comment that starts with '/*!'.)

You can also follow jQuery banner style (like in http://code.jquery.com/jquery-2.0.3.js) to minimize banner space. I don't know whether this style (no license text in banner, just a name of license and HTTP link to its text) is legally right, but it's a nice compromise.

[raimohanska]

I took a look at how jQuery does this: http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.10.2.js

Seems they only include a link to the license file. Maybe that would be enough for us too.

[leonidborisenko]

I took a look at how jQuery does this: http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.10.2.js
Seems they only include a link to the license file. Maybe that would be enough for us too.

Personally, now I'm mostly concerned about copyright attribution, not about [full] text of license. If jQuery (as a widespread library) provide copyright and license information in that way, I believe it's good enough for license's sake. It's good enough for me, anyway.

Do you want me to make another commit in this PR or you'll define banner (license header) content by yourself?

[phadej]

I guess, MIT license as a concept is so well established, there aren't any legal ambiguities, so there aren't any need to repeat it fully. And, after all, MIT-license is very permissive.

Btw. it would make sense to bump the year in the license (to 2012-2014!) and maybe expand owners list to "Juha Paananen & bacon.js contributors" -- public github repository defines the latter quite well

[leonidborisenko]

I guess, MIT license as a concept is so well established, there aren't any legal ambiguities, so there aren't any need to repeat it fully. And, after all, MIT-license is very permissive.

As I said, I'm fine with this point of view, so while this comment is arguing, it's only out of uncertainty, not because I want to be right.

The "problem" is in this license statement:

Permission is hereby granted [...] subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

IANAL, but it looks like user is obliged to include whole permission notice in copies of Software (i.e. bacon.js file).

BTW, as I just thought, jQuery at provided link is distributed by jQuery organization itself from its CDN, so there is no legal risk for them in skipping permission notice.