Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Licensing issues

[Nicodemo Alvaro]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Karl Berry <address@hidden> wrote:
>    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,
>
> Personally, I completely agree with you.  But my understanding is that
> rms insists we be this picky, for the sake of "educating" submitters
> about these issues -- every source (non-derived) file should be covered.
> (And this is a major reason why the backlog is what it is.)

I don't quite understand non-derived files. I believe Savane-cleanup
would be a good example to explain my confusion. This project is a
fork of what used to be SourceForge 2.0 [1]. The below file [2] has
copyright from both the SourceForge Crew and the FSF in different
years. The file claims that it is part of the Savane project in the
license notice. To me this contrasts the exclusion of derived files
from being covered.

[1] https://gna.org/cookbook/?213
[2] 
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=savane-cleanup.git;a=blob;f=frontend/php/include/Error.class;h=3069b0addfa71aa26ab6f697ccc678fdcd1b35a2;hb=HEAD