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

Re: Empty source file with proprietary header

Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Maybe: we don't know the "proprietary license", so we cannot answer
> to this question.

It was a general question. Not specific to some license.

It should depend, for example, on whether that "proprietary license" allow
redistribution of those files. But, let's say: it's granted. Is it allowed
to include such files?

>> FTM, I removed those files and made a clean dfsg tarball.
> I'm not sure that it is good and dfsg.
> Do other files include such header file?

There are only those files with such header. All remaining files are GPL.

> Maybe the author wanted to put the proprietary license
> in other files, in a "geek" manner.

I don't think so. The file I'm speaking about are only stub files for a
missing plugin (which is proprietary) and are kept there for some reason
(probably upstream forgot to re-license or delete them from the tarball).
The plugin can be safely desactivated using the configure script.

> Anyway, you should ask upstreams about this header file,
> and also ask them to remove it, if it is possible.

I already asked. They will probably delete them in a future release.


Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
Tel.: (+33).

Reply to: