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:
pgpdQmQNmOqeZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature