Hello Peter, I am reviewing erlang-skerlhttps://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652648and the issue I am facing is similar to what Ville-Pekka reports. In this case, some of the c source/header files and erlang source files are without license headers.

Could you ask upstream to include license headers in the source code files of both packages / or confirm the licensing of those files?

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Tom Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:

On 01/13/2011 04:17 PM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:

...

1. All other relevant source files have a license header except

include/bitcask.hrl and c_src/erl_nif_compat.h. I'm not sure if they constitute a "work" in terms of copyright and should have licenses. What do you think?

I think those files should have license headers. At a minimum, we should confirm the licensing with upstream.

...

2. This is, to me, the more important question. There is a .pdf file and

some .png files in the doc directory. To me these seem like works which are under copyright, but I can't find a license for them anywhere in the source tree. Does this make them non-free and non-redistributable?

If we don't know the license, we have to assume we have no license. However, we should make every effort to ask upstream about the license terms of those files.

In cases where a general license statement is given somewhere, like in README, we can assume it applies to these sorts of files as well, but in this case where there is no license attribution, we either need to get it from upstream (aka the copyright holder) or assume we have no license.

~tom

== Fedora Project _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

su, 2011-01-16 kello 13:22 +0300, Peter Lemenkov kirjoitti:

I already contacted Justin Sheeny, one of the upstream developers, regarding legal status of the erlang-bitcask. He replied that these files are indeed SSL 2.0 licensed, and the necessary headers will be added to these files very soon (only in SCM - no tarballs with already released versions will be recreated and re-released).

Thanks, that's good to hear.

Also he kindly granted us permission to redistribute doc-file freely w/o modifications. I hope that it's ok for content.

I would like to get a confirmation from someone that this is OK in Fedora before accepting the package.

ma, 2011-01-17 kello 12:11 -0500, Tom Callaway kirjoitti:

So, while I would strongly encourage upstreams to consider Free Documentation licenses, it is not a requirement for documentation inclusion in Fedora.

Thanks for your answers, Tom. When we get a license for the two header files committed to the upstream repository, I can continue the review.