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 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html 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 :-) Best, Michael
Attachment:
pgpe2I6NJ4xi1.pgp
Description: PGP signature