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

[David Hedlund]

[CC'd Donald and Stallman]


On 2018-07-01 18:04, David Hedlund wrote:
>
> 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.
>>>>>>
>
>