Re: Missing license info in source files - fixed in upstream svn
* Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> [070706 17:46]:
> > I'm not sure I understand; would a "COPYING" file stating "this project
> > is licensed under..." be acceptable?
> In practice, there's so much software out there that just provides a
> license in the README file and no separate notices in each file that I
> don't think you're going out on much of a limb by assuming that any files
> that don't say otherwise are covered by the copyright and license in the
> general README file.
One still should do the usual minimal coherency checks. If for example
files have a different author or copyright holder specified or look
totally out of style, its better to search the web for those files
and/or seek for clarification.
> You do need to be careful of packages that just drop the GPL COPYING file
> into the distribution but don't mention a license anywhere else in the
> distribution. Some packages like that have, in the past, not actually
> been under the GPL. Upstream sometimes does dumb things, like put COPYING
> in the distribution just to satisfy Automake. Unless there's some
> statement written by the author specifying what the package license is,
> it's probably worth seeking clarification.
Another case often enough gotten wrong are things like icons, which are
often just copied around. Its better to ask upstream explicitly about
them. Or if it is a package were upstream is no longer available, doing
a quick google check for those file's md5sums for an explicit hint
if they are from other sources.
Bernhard R. Link
 After all, you should contact upstream anyway, as an very important
part of maintaining a package should be communicating about bugs,
user supplied patches, your own patches, ...