A 2014-07-24 21:30, Kevin Brubeck Unhammer escrigué: > 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?)
No, the COPYING file should be considered to be applicable to all source code; except in the event that there is licence information in the source that contradicts it. Fran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
