Hi, John Cowan <[email protected]> writes:
[...] >> If files carry no license (so the license status is unclear), a license >> must not be added without consent by the author. Either it is >> insignificant, in which case nothing would have changed in front of a court >> anyway, or it is significant, in which case it would have been wrong to >> guess and attach a license. >> > > The *literal* interpretation of a missing license is that the code is > unlicensed (no rights available), which cannot have been the intention of > the author. The clear assumption has always been that such files are > implicitly licensed under the MIT license. Moving from implicit to > explicit is an appropriate move, and clearly permitted under the implicit > license. That seems a reasonable interpretation, in the context of SRFIs, given the licensing guidelines offered to authors [0]. If we agree on this, it means we deem it acceptable to add REUSE 'SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT' comments to source files not already explicitly containing a license notice. Does someone disagree with the above? [0] https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-process.html -- Thanks, Maxim
