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

Re: RFS: haserl (second try)

On 01/05/2011 22:55, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> Hi,
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "haserl".
>> * Package name    : haserl
>>   Version         : 0.9.27-1
>>   Upstream Author : Nathan Angelacos <nangel@users.sourceforge.net>
>> * URL             : http://haserl.sourceforge.net
>> * License         : GPL-2
>>   Section         : interpreters
> [...]
> IMHO this is not distributable as-is because all the header files in src/ lack
> both copyright and license information. Please persuade upstream to fix this.

I'll talk to them about it, but as far as I know, there is nothing in GPL that
states that all source files *must* contain the GPL copyright/license header.

In fact, I was under the impression that while it is strongly recommended for
the license/copyright information for each source file to be documented, if
there is no reason to believe that the source file does not come from somewhere
else, it is then safe to assume that source files which do not contain explicit
license/copyright information are released under the same license/copyright as
the global project license/copyright, as mentioned in COPYING.

Am I wrong about this?

Kind regards,
Loong Jin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: