Hello Peter, I am reviewing erlang-skerl<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652648>and the issue I am facing is similar to what Ville-Pekka reports. In this case, some of the c source/header files and erlang source files are without license headers.
Could you ask upstream to include license headers in the source code files of both packages / or confirm the licensing of those files? On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Tom Callaway <tcall...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 01/13/2011 04:17 PM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote: > > 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? > > I think those files should have license headers. At a minimum, we should > confirm the licensing with upstream. > > > 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? > > If we don't know the license, we have to assume we have no license. > 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. > > ~tom > > == > Fedora Project > _______________________________________________ > legal mailing list > legal@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal > -- Regards Lakshmi Narasimhan T V
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal