FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-29-2008, 10:35 AM
Jaroslav Reznik
 
Default Package review - How handle licence in source code only?

Hi,
the best solution I think is to ask authors to
clarify license and ask them to include LICENSE
file in source tarball.

R.
---
Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik@redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base OS Core Services Brno
Red Hat, Inc.
+420 532 294 275

----- "Adam Tkac" <atkac@redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm reviewing dnsperf package -
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467798. Licence of code
> is
> written only in source code itself:
>
> ...
> * 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?
>
> Regards, Adam
>
> --
> Adam Tkac, Red Hat, Inc.
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-29-2008, 02:01 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Package review - How handle licence in source code only?

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@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:14 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org