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

Re: RFS: haserl (second try)

Hi again,

> > 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.

IANAL, but "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" states pretty clearly
that "... each file should have at least the “copyright” line and a pointer to
where the full notice is found."

I'm not sure whether this is legally binding, but


explicitly states in the fourth paragraph that adding such a header is required.

> 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?

I have no information stating that there is a difference between multiple
license/copyright holders and a single one. Yet neither do I have conclusive
information beyond the one cited above.

If you need a conclusive statement, please consult debian-legal. As far as I am
concerned I'm just not going to mess around with such an unclear state of
affairs and will refrain from sponsoring. Yet others might be fine with it :-)


Attachment: pgpcA8iAUgEki.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: