On 01/30/2010 01:21 AM, Jon Stanley wrote: > I'm running into an interesting problem with PHP PEAR channel > definition licensing. All that this really is is an XML file that > defines where to get the channel, etc, similar to a yum repo > definition. > > The problem is that there is no copyright specified for this file. > Looking at other review requests, it looks like either the license > field was pulled out of thin air with no explanation, or they used the > license of the PHP modules distributed by the channel. This approach > seems wrong to me, as there could obviously be modules covered by > several different licenses. > > At a more basic level, is such a file a even a copyrightable work? I > don't believe so, because it contains no creative expression > whatsoever - it's just metadata I'm going to say that the work you're describing is not copyrightable, thus, we don't need to worry too much about it being unlicensed. ~spot _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
