Re: Copyrights and licenses
Ian Lynagh wrote:
> The problems:
> * The 2 m4 files do not have any license in them. Is that OK?
> * While t_sha.c has license 7, t_sha.h has no license. Is that OK?
Usually it's ok if not all files have a license statement, since it's
reasonable to assume that they fall under the same license as the rest
of the package. But in this case -- who knows?
> * License n looks a bit vague - is it valid?
Which is license n?
> * License 2 says:
> The use of this software for revenue-generating purposes may require a
> license from the owners of the underlying intellectual property.
> Specifically, the SRP-1 protocol may not be used for revenue-generating
> purposes without license.
> I believe this makes it non-free - am I correct?
Eww... this looks like a software patent. Can you find out more about it?
> * Is there any other problem with compiling files using licenses 1-7 together?
I see no contradictions. They all give the same permissions, and seem to
be compatible with the GPL in License 8. Notice how License 2 is careful
to avoid making the SRP-1 thing part of the license.