[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [directory-discuss] Any admin available to review PeerTube?

From: David Hedlund
Subject: Re: [directory-discuss] Any admin available to review PeerTube?
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 07:22:03 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/52.8.0

On 2018-06-24 16:27, John Sullivan wrote:
> Ted Teah <address@hidden> writes:
>> On Sat, 2018-06-23 at 16:04 -0400, John Sullivan wrote:
>>> It's been in the news a lot lately due to YouTube's haywire takedown
>>> algorithms. Looks like someone created an entry but it's not been
>>> approved yet:
>>> Can someone with review abilities take a look? 
>> I've looked at.  I cn't be certain of all the interactions so something
>> non-free might be involved, this is just cynical speculation.  There is
>> a top level AGPL. The license hygiene isn't great.  The on
>> github includes the license header block for the AGPL.
>> Yea/nya it?
> I think as long as a top-level license and a clear statement of
> licensing intent are present (which it sounds like they are, between the
> AGPL file and the, with no indications of proprietary
> licensing for any files, we can accept that.
> If a volunteer has the time, it'd be great to submit patches to PeerTube
> to add the per-file license headers, but I don't think that's necessary
> for them to be added to the Directory.
> -john
Doesn't the GNU FSDG require that it's mandatory to include license
headers? Shouldn't the Directory be treated under equally conditions?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]