On Tue, July 3, 2007 4:06 pm, Paul Cager wrote: > 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. > > 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? What about if > there is no such file but there is an explicit license declaration on > upstream's web site?
May I ask for a bit of clarification? Andreas Barth said: >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). So it looks as though it is acceptable to have files without license declarations (provided the license is stated elsewhere). But Ben Finney said: >No, there needs to be an explicit grant of license explaining what >terms apply, and exactly which files comprise the work being licensed. I'm not sure I understand; would a "COPYING" file stating "this project is licensed under..." be acceptable? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
