[Top][All Lists]

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

[task #15711] Submission of Machine Learning system VKF

From: Ineiev
Subject: [task #15711] Submission of Machine Learning system VKF
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 06:22:38 -0400 (EDT)
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/78.0

Follow-up Comment #15, task #15711 (project administration):

[comment #14 comment #14:]
> No, I don't understand.

Good; I'll try to explain.

Copyright and license notices in every file help avoid uncertainty about what
rights are given to the user. If a tarball has one statement about it in a
central place like README, it makes the situation clear _for that tarball_;
however, programmers often copy files from one package to another. If a file
contains no notices, that information is lost,

Now, from user's point of view, it doesn't matter whether the file was written
by the original package maintainer (in fact, the term itself may have little
sense): the users get the whole tarball, and they get it from the person who
releases it. It's that person who is responsible for its full contents. In
other words, whenever you put a file into your tarball, it becames _your_
file. As I already pointed out, you can't include proprietary software in your
tarball, even when it's written by other people.

> Do I also need to change the included dependencies files by addition of
legal notices to each of them? Does it violate their licence terms?

I can see nothing in those terms that would prohibit adding that data to the
covered files. Do I miss anything?


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

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