Re: Missing license info in source files - fixed in upstream svn
On Tue, July 3, 2007 4:06 pm, Paul Cager 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.
>
> 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? What about if
> there is no such file but there is an explicit license declaration on
> upstream's web site?
May I ask for a bit of clarification?
Andreas Barth said:
>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).
So it looks as though it is acceptable to have files without license
declarations (provided the license is stated elsewhere).
But Ben Finney said:
>No, there needs to be an explicit grant of license explaining what
>terms apply, and exactly which files comprise the work being licensed.
I'm not sure I understand; would a "COPYING" file stating "this project is
licensed under..." be acceptable?
Reply to: