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

[David Hedlund]

On 2018-06-26 21:45, Ian Kelling wrote:
> 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?
I asked another question, about the license, not about license notices.

>
>> 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.
>>>