"Paul Cager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, July 3, 2007 8:38 am, Andreas Barth wrote: > > Explain it in debian/copyright, that's the proper place (the > > source files don't actually need license statement, even though of > > course it helps transparence and is therefore encouraged). > > I didn't realise that. I had assumed that each source file *had* to > have a license declaration in it.
A grant of license is ambiguous (and therefore a greater risk for someone exercising that license) if it's not explicitly clear to a third party which work the license applies to. Since the easiest way to be explicit about a grant of license on a text file is to place a license grant prominently inside the text file, that's what is recommended for program source code. > So if the source files do not have license declarations, we are > still OK if there is a "COPYING" (or similar) file in the tarball? No, there needs to be an explicit grant of license explaining what terms apply, and exactly which files comprise the work being licensed. -- \ "Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "I think so, | `\ Brain, but how will we get a pair of Abe Vigoda's pants?" -- | _o__) _Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]