GPL and LGPL not acceptable for Fedora!

[Jesse Keating]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:19:36 +0200
Tomas Janousek <tjanouse at redhat.com> wrote:

> What I'm trying to say is that if The Program does not mention what
> license it is being licensed in *at all*, does it really mean it's
> GPL?

Only if the COPYING file unmodified exists along side it.  If there is
no mention of license, and there is no COPYING file, or no other such
documentation that would give a hint as to what the license of the
software is, it would be unlicensed, and we should stay away from it
until the author(s) apply some sort of license.  We can helpfully
suggest a few, like the wtfpl...

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070816/cf30b523/attachment.sig>