This may be a FAQ, but searching didn't turn it up. If it's not already documented, perhaps we could get it into the FAQ page because this question comes up often enough when doing package reviews.
The problem is code which has no license information at all. Sometimes there are copyright notices, sometimes not, and no mention whatsoever of any type of license. However, there's a mention of a license at the upstream web site.
Now, obviously upstream should be prodded to get with the program. But in the interim, is it sufficient to simply refer to the upstream web site? Keep a copy of it in the package (in case they decide to change it for some reason)? Or should this kind of software be avoided entirely until upstream decides to release a version with a properly included license?
- J<
Disclaimer: IAARHL, IANYL, TINLA
On 15 Aug 2008 18:22:46 -0500 Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs@math.uh.edu wrote:
The problem is code which has no license information at all. Sometimes there are copyright notices, sometimes not, and no mention whatsoever of any type of license. However, there's a mention of a license at the upstream web site.
Now, obviously upstream should be prodded to get with the program. But in the interim, is it sufficient to simply refer to the upstream web site? Keep a copy of it in the package (in case they decide to change it for some reason)? Or should this kind of software be avoided entirely until upstream decides to release a version with a properly included license?
I'd say the last option is the most appropriate one.
- RF
"RF" == Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com writes:
RF> Disclaimer: IAARHL, IANYL, TINLA
No problem. However, please forgive this response for I am new to this list and don't know who everyone is. I simply do not know if should take your comments as rendered opinion for the purposes of acceptance of packages into Fedora.
I do a large amount of new package review and run into odd license questions nearly every day. Often I ping spot for these but I figured I'd try to get closer to the source. I just don't know who the sources actually are yet.
- J<
On 15 Aug 2008 21:13:58 -0500 Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs@math.uh.edu wrote:
"RF" == Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com writes:
RF> Disclaimer: IAARHL, IANYL, TINLA
No problem. However, please forgive this response for I am new to this list and don't know who everyone is. I simply do not know if should take your comments as rendered opinion for the purposes of acceptance of packages into Fedora.
Oh, I wasn't rendering any sort of official opinion for Fedora (I would look to spot for that). Rather, I think the question is an unusually easy one to answer. No one ought to use code that has no licensing information in it, and I think it's best to assume that it's too risky for anyone to rely on an informal statement on a web site. Educating upstream developers about this is a good idea, of course.
- RF