Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Licensing issues

[Nicodemo Alvaro]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Yavor Doganov <address@hidden> wrote:
> Karl Berry wrote:
>>
>>      Would non-compiling scripts, such as shell scripts, be
>>      described as source files.
>>
>> Definitely, as Noah said.  In short, the author should put a license
>> notice in anything they create, i.e., that is not a derived file.
>
> While this is right, many people do not add notices to makefiles
> (especially Makefile.am's), changelogs and headers.  I don't think we
> should be picky about these cases, as they are in some sense
> debatable, more or less (trivial recipes to generate binaries, obvious
> non-creative recording of changes, function declarations/prototypes).
>

Well, I just edited the wiki page just before you wrote. If it's a
case of being picky I won't annoy the people who do not add the
licenses to those files. Thanks for the help.