On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:58:11 -0700 Michael Thomas <wart@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > As a slight variant to this, the standard Tcl 'license.terms' file > contains the following boilerplate: > > "The following terms apply to all files associated with the software > unless explicitly disclaimed in individual files." > > Does this qualify as the same irrelevance as COPYING because it was > not written by the author? Some Tcl packages (bwidget) contain only > this license file, but no reference to the license file in any of the > source files. Shouldn't this still be enough to qualify the license > as 'TCL'? If it's not modified we have to follow the letter of the file. In the case of GPL and COPYING, the letter of the file states that if no version is indicated, /any/ version can be used, which results in "GPL+". I'd have to examine the license.terms file closely but the basic idea is that whatever is in the file counts. One would hope that the license.terms doesn't have such an open ended pitfall within it. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
