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

[David Hedlund]

On 2018-06-27 00:42, Ian Kelling wrote:
> David Hedlund <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> 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.
> Oh. I was the one who misunderstood. I misread. What I was was
> wrong. Sorry.
>
> I think it should be ok to put in the fsd without a copy of the license
> if there is a clear statement of the intended license. But I would like
> to hear John's opinion.

I'd like to hear Donald's and Stallman's opinions first and foremost:
* Can Directory entries be approved if the non-trivial source code files
lack license notices.
* Can Directory entries be approved if source code lacks a license file
in the root directory?

I used to spend a lot of time to discuss these issues with the
developers for Firefox add-ons and I used to unapprove entries that
didn't qualify with the criterion per agreement as suggested by
Stallman. This wasn't practical since it took way to much time and there
were no volunteer except me that worked on this on this long-term issue.

>
>>>> Adblock Plus
>>>> (https://issues.adblockplus.org/ticket/6765) and NoScript (emailed the
>>>> developer about
>>>> https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/downloads/file/972162/noscript_security_suite-10.1.8.2-an+fx.xpi)
>>>> doesn't have a license copy in the root directory. So should I unapprove
>>>> https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Adblock_Plus and
>>>> https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/IceCat/NoScript ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>>