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