Package review - How handle licence in source code only?
Kevin Kofler
kevin.kofler at chello.at
Wed Oct 29 15:01:32 UTC 2008
Adam Tkac <atkac <at> redhat.com> writes:
> I'm reviewing dnsperf package -
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467798. Licence of code is
> written only in source code itself:
Assuming _all_ the source files carry the notice, this is not a problem, things
become a bit murkier when some files are missing the notice, but usually you
can assume they just forgot to add it to those files. (What _is_ a problem,
though, is when some sources include some conflicting or non-Free license.)
> * Copyright (C) 2004 - 2008 Nominum, Inc.
> *
> * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
> * documentation for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted,
> * provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice
> * appear in all copies.
> ...
>
> What should be correct licence tag? The licence is BSD compatible so
> can I recommend BSD licence tag?
This sounds like a variant of the MIT X11 license, so it should be:
License: MIT
Kevin Kofler
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list