Francis Tyers <[email protected]> writes: > A 2014-07-24 18:05, Jim O'Regan escrigué: >> On 24 July 2014 16:15, Anthony J. Bentley <[email protected]> wrote: > > This has been a long thread: > > My opinion: > > 1) The PMC should make a policy to deal with licensing.
+1
> 2) In my opinion everything in the subversion repository should be dual
> licensed GPLv3 (or later) and CC-BY-SA (the stuff in Apertium is
> somewhere between data and code, so this makes sense).
But I guess the code-not-data things like
trunk/{apertium,lttoolbox,apertium-lex-tools} should only be
GPLv3-or-later, not CC-BY-SA?
> In the meantime, my advice to Tino would be to not package stuff where
> the licence is not clear. And forward specific examples to the PMC or
> named authors for resolution.
I don't think there's much data where the license (version) _is_
clear :-/ (Can we really assume that no mention of "or later" in source
files means that the version in COPYING is the correct and the only one,
when most of those COPYING files were copied from some other pair or
inserted automatically by autotools?)
--
Kevin Brubeck Unhammer
GPG: 0x766AC60C
pgpg1wMHcuiCB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds
_______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
