clarify licensing

[automaticgiant]

copyright is listed. header content suggests end-user modification.

[postboy]

sirspudd: Shouldn't you add a license preamble if you want to see this gain usage/traction?
BSD or WTFPL for example?

Chris Rohlf: @sirspudd. Thanks! I consider this code as just an example and too small for a license. Consider it public domain for the greater good.

http://blog.leafsr.com/2013/12/02/gcc-poison/

[sionescu]

In many countries explicitly marking as "public domain" is not allowed, so you'd better have an explicit one. Also, legal departments tend to forbid joke licences such as the WTFPL. The MIT licence is as minimal as you can get, for example.

[leafsr]

License is 3 clause bsd. http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause please
beware this snippet of code is no longer maintained. I hope you found it
useful. I maintain code as @struct on github.

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015, Stelian Ionescu notifications@github.com
wrote:

In many countries explicitly marking as "public domain" is not allowed, so
you'd better have an explicit one. Also, legal departments tend to forbid
joke licences such as the WTFPL. The MIT licence is as minimal as you can
get, for example.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#5 (comment).

[araxius]

It would be awesome if you add this to the comment above the header file (poison.h), to prevent any future complications. Thanks.