Re: GPL and LGPL not acceptable for Fedora! | |
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] | |
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:19:36 +0200 Tomas Janousek <tjanouse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > What I'm trying to say is that if The Program does not mention what > license it is being licensed in *at all*, does it really mean it's > GPL? Only if the COPYING file unmodified exists along side it. If there is no mention of license, and there is no COPYING file, or no other such documentation that would give a hint as to what the license of the software is, it would be unlicensed, and we should stay away from it until the author(s) apply some sort of license. We can helpfully suggest a few, like the wtfpl... -- 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
[Home] [Fedora Users] [Fedora Devel Java] [Fedora Legacy] [Fedora Desktop] [Fedora SELinux] [Big List of Linux Books] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [KDE Users] [Fedora Tools]
