[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [directory-discuss] Are license notices mandatory?
From: |
Ian Kelling |
Subject: |
Re: [directory-discuss] Are license notices mandatory? |
Date: |
Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:45:12 -0400 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.1.0; emacs 27.0.50 |
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?
> 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.
>>