Hi,
I've submitted a review request (#461484) and have a couple of licensing
issues there (quoting from BZ):
>- from the licensing point of view, we have a small mess
> a) lots of files have headers defining them as GPLv2+ (good)
> b) headers of some other files specifu Public Domain as license (good
> again)
> c) however there are several files ( for instance
> clients/threadtest.c and
> many files under /lib ) which have no license specified. What reason
> can we invoke in order to assume that they are like all the others,
> Public Domain or GPLv2+ ?
> In addition to that, the sourcefarge page of the project
> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/twin/) claims that the project is
> licensed as GPL and LGPL, but LGPL is only mentioned in the source
> through the presence of the standard LGPL license file; I have not
> been able to locate any other trace of it. Public Domain + GPLv2+ =
no > problem, but the presence of files with no specific license make me
> ask for help. Anyone more experienced in licensing willing to shed
> some light ?
1) do I have to ask upstream to specify license in each
file?
2) what license should this package be or do I have to ask upstream to
clarify it?
Thanks for any help,
Milos Jakubicek
_______________________________________________
Fedora-legal-list mailing list
Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
