Re: Documentation and header files seemingly without a license
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On 01/13/2011 04:17 PM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:I think those files should have license headers. At a minimum, we should
> 1. All other relevant source files have a license header except
> include/bitcask.hrl and c_src/erl_nif_compat.h. I'm not sure if they
> constitute a "work" in terms of copyright and should have licenses. What
> do you think?
confirm the licensing with upstream.
If we don't know the license, we have to assume we have no license.
> 2. This is, to me, the more important question. There is a .pdf file and
> some .png files in the doc directory. To me these seem like works which
> are under copyright, but I can't find a license for them anywhere in the
> source tree. Does this make them non-free and non-redistributable?
However, we should make every effort to ask upstream about the license
terms of those files.
In cases where a general license statement is given somewhere, like in
README, we can assume it applies to these sorts of files as well, but in
this case where there is no license attribution, we either need to get
it from upstream (aka the copyright holder) or assume we have no license.
legal mailing list
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
[Fedora Users] [Fedora Maintainers] [Fedora Desktop] [Fedora SELinux] [Big List of Linux Books] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [KDE Users] [Fedora Tools]