Adam Tkac <atkac <at> redhat.com> writes: > I'm reviewing dnsperf package - > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467798. Licence of code is > written only in source code itself: Assuming _all_ the source files carry the notice, this is not a problem, things become a bit murkier when some files are missing the notice, but usually you can assume they just forgot to add it to those files. (What _is_ a problem, though, is when some sources include some conflicting or non-Free license.) > * Copyright (C) 2004 - 2008 Nominum, Inc. > * > * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its > * documentation for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, > * provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice > * appear in all copies. > ... > > What should be correct licence tag? The licence is BSD compatible so > can I recommend BSD licence tag? This sounds like a variant of the MIT X11 license, so it should be: License: MIT Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
