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

[Ian Kelling]

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?

> 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.
>>