[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Missing license info in source files - fixed in upstream svn



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: pgpEldz5_Slpw.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: