Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: > > Maybe: we don't know the "proprietary license", so we cannot answer > to this question. >
It was a general question. Not specific to some license. It should depend, for example, on whether that "proprietary license" allow redistribution of those files. But, let's say: it's granted. Is it allowed to include such files? > >> FTM, I removed those files and made a clean dfsg tarball. > > I'm not sure that it is good and dfsg. > > Do other files include such header file? There are only those files with such header. All remaining files are GPL. > Maybe the author wanted to put the proprietary license > in other files, in a "geek" manner. > I don't think so. The file I'm speaking about are only stub files for a missing plugin (which is proprietary) and are kept there for some reason (probably upstream forgot to re-license or delete them from the tarball). The plugin can be safely desactivated using the configure script. > Anyway, you should ask upstreams about this header file, > and also ask them to remove it, if it is possible. > I already asked. They will probably delete them in a future release. Cheers, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~dogguy Tel.: (+33).1.44.27.28.38 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
