[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: debian-devel
Subject: Re: Missing license info in source files - fixed in upstream svn
From: Neil Williams <linux () codehelp ! co ! uk>
Date: 2007-07-03 16:05:49
Message-ID: 20070703170549.532448e1.linux () codehelp ! co ! uk
[Download RAW message or body]
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 16:06:11 +0100 (BST)
"Paul Cager" <paul-debian@home.paulcager.org> wrote:
> On Tue, July 3, 2007 8:38 am, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Explain it in debian/copyright, that's the proper place (the source
> > files don't actually need license statement, even though of course it
> > helps transparence and is therefore encouraged).
>
> I didn't realise that. I had assumed that each source file *had* to have a
> license declaration in it.
Sometimes this is not possible - generated files often would not
contain a license (glade-2).
> So if the source files do not have license declarations, we are still OK
> if there is a "COPYING" (or similar) file in the tarball?
As long as nothing in the source files contradicts the license.
> What about if
> there is no such file but there is an explicit license declaration on
> upstream's web site?
Most licenses require that the license is distributed alongside the
licensed work so, AFAICT, that would not be deemed to be properly
licensed.
--
Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic