[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [directory-discuss] Are license notices mandatory?

From: David Hedlund
Subject: Re: [directory-discuss] Are license notices mandatory?
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 22:33:00 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/52.8.0

On 2018-06-26 21:45, Ian Kelling wrote:
> David Hedlund <address@hidden> writes:
>> Thank you John. But the programs must be distributed with a copy of the
>> license in the root directory, right?
> I think John was pretty clear the answer is no, not necessarily for
> approving in the fsd. Do you understand what he said?
I asked another question, about the license, not about license notices.

>> Adblock Plus
>> ( and NoScript (emailed the
>> developer about
>> doesn't have a license copy in the root directory. So should I unapprove
>> and
>> ?
>> On 2018-06-25 17:03, John Sullivan wrote:
>>> David, the program in question also has  a statement of intent in its 
>>> README licensing the project under the AGPL. So this is different than the 
>>> situation your message addresses, where the only indication of license is a 
>>> copy of the license file. 
>>> So, this is okay for the FSD, but yes it is still most certainly good to 
>>> ask projects to also add per file license headers. It's the best practice.

reply via email to

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