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

[John Sullivan]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>   > >> 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.
>
> Yes, if that is the ONLY problem, the package can be listed.
>
>   > > * Can Directory entries be approved if source code lacks a license file
>   > > in the root directory?
>
> My first inclination is to say no to them, but if that would mean rejecting
> some important package that we really want to list, then we should think about
> it further.
>
> Maybe it is easy to get that problem fixed, since fixing it is not much work.
> If so, we should first try to get them fixed.

Yes, I think part of the benefit of the Directory work is getting people
to fix problems like this.

David, if there is no copy of the license anywhere in the repository, we
should not add it before taking a closer look, because that may be a
license violation.

-john

-- 
John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: A462 6CBA FF37 6039 D2D7 5544 97BA 9CE7 61A0 963B
https://status.fsf.org/johns | https://fsf.org/blogs/RSS

Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at
<https://my.fsf.org/join>.