On 27 January 2015 at 03:44, Richard Stallman <[email protected]> wrote: > The GPL says that this decision is made and stated with notices in the > source files, but these source files have no such notices, meaning no > decision was ever stated.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, and you are correct that we haven't put license information in each of our files. I for one was unaware that there was this ambiguity, although I'm not a maintainer of the software, only an occasional committer. Since this list is used for a wide range of openstreetmap-related development projects, not just the code for the website, here are some more targetted links: http://git.openstreetmap.org/rails.git/ https://trac.openstreetmap.org/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&component=website&order=priority https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website > Can I ask the developers of those files to make a choice, so that it > can be listed in the source files and finish specifying how they are > licensed? There are approximately 112 developers involved in the whole codebase, so I hope we won't need to contact each of them! For a number of years the README has stated: "This software is licensed under the GNU General Public License 2.0. See included LICENSE file for details." ... so I expect the answer is that it's v2 only, not v2 and later. In saying that, we could certainly be more clear in each of the source files in addition to the README Thanks, Andy _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
