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

[Ian Kelling]

David Hedlund <address@hidden> writes:

> 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.

Oh. I was the one who misunderstood. I misread. What I was was
wrong. Sorry.

I think it should be ok to put in the fsd without a copy of the license
if there is a clear statement of the intended license. But I would like
to hear John's opinion.

>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>>