Re: Missing license info in source files - fixed in upstream svn
"Paul Cager" <email@example.com> writes:
> 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.
A grant of license is ambiguous (and therefore a greater risk for
someone exercising that license) if it's not explicitly clear to a
third party which work the license applies to.
Since the easiest way to be explicit about a grant of license on a
text file is to place a license grant prominently inside the text
file, that's what is recommended for program source code.
> 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?
No, there needs to be an explicit grant of license explaining what
terms apply, and exactly which files comprise the work being licensed.
\ "Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "I think so, |
`\ Brain, but how will we get a pair of Abe Vigoda's pants?" -- |
_o__) _Pinky and The Brain_ |