> On Sun, Jun 6, 2021, 1:39 PM Adam Faiz <adam.faiz5...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It puts a LICENSE file ... > > ... It applies to everything in that repo, unless stated otherwise.
just as a side note, i do not believe that is quite correct - people do conventionally assume that is the case; but the licenses themselves do not justify that assumption for example, there is nothing in the GPL, which states that it applies to every file in the code-base - the license header of each source file serves that purpose - in fact, the GPL explicitly states that it only pertains to source code; but not other files such as images, documentation, or sounds - those are presumed to be licensed separately take the MIT licenses, as another example: > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person > obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation > files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software ... obviously, images and audio are not "software" nor "documentation"; which means that this license does not claim to cover those files so an image file which happens to be in the code-base, but without declaring which license applies to it, is not licensed at all, and really should not be there - it is probably tainting the entire code-base from being distrbutable as a whole (eg: as a complete tarball or VCS clone, which is the most common way people would acquire it) as the GPLs and MITs are probably the most common libre licenses in use today, people should be aware of this - it is a shame that most forges do not explain the different license, their implications, and how to apply them properly; because forges are probably the only place that most people would be likely to be introduced to licensing none of this is a specific criticism of codeberg or any other - most forges do not have any documentation about licensing - that is a missed opportunity, at a strategic point in the supply chain, and a general dis-service to their users and the wider free software community