On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 03:16:24PM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > As part of our ongoing committment to Open Source, Fedora Extras is > undergoing a license audit of the packages contained within it. We do > this for several reasons: > > 1. To ensure that we don't have any packages containing licenses that do > not meet the Fedora licensing standards. I take that opportunity to ask a few questions for cases that seem unclear to me. Do we consider files with copyright or a mention of an author and no license to be problematic, or to be covered by the main license (if such a thing exists)? Files copyrighted, but without license should be considered to be under a restrictive license (no modification nor redistribution). However, when the remaining of the package is consistently under a given license and the authors are the same I consider that the notice is missing, but that the main license cover the files. Is it right? Do we consider files with incomplete license notice (when a complete notice exists, like for the GPL) to be problematic? -- Pat -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
