[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trent W. Buck) writes: > If a file has no license declaration, it *is not licensed*. Therefore > adding license declarations is REQUIRED. It is *not* sufficient to > simply include a COPYING file in the root directory. This applies to > *ALL* files (that aren't autogenerated), including documentation, tests > and build files. > > It's not clear to me if we can add a license declaration to a file > without checking with the copyright holder. Are contributions to darcs > > - implicitly "GPL2"; > - implicitly "GPL2 or higher"; or > - not implicitly licensed? > > If the last, we need to contact each contributor and get them to agree > to license their contributions. Much of this has probably already been > done when kowey et al were getting openssl exception agreements. I'll > have to go back and look at their message to see if correspondents were > agreeing to "GPL2 & openssl exception" or "GPL2+ & openssl exception".
Unfortunately, release/openssl_ok indicates that correspondents were agreeing to exceptions, but not an actual license! I think this means we need to talk to everyone who has worked on Darcs so far, and get them to agree to license their work under the terms of GPL-2 or higher, with the exceptions mentioned in release/openssl_ok. Eric, would you like to schedule a meeting to discuss this in IRC? I'm in the +1100 timezone at the moment, and I'm available all weekend. Related BTS issues: http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1141 darcs patch: Copyright and licensing notes and rationales. http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1143 darcs changes --xml is not consistently encoded _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
