SimonPoole wrote > Besides all the comments that have already been made, I don't think that > unilaterally declaring the licence to be GPL is a particularly good idea.
There is a COPYING file in the mod_tile directory with the full legal text of the GPL2 and that has been there since 2007 according to the svn log. So I don't think it would be "unilaterally declaring the license to be GPL" SimonPoole wrote > There is an issue that not stating licence terms and terms under which > contributions can be made would technically make the programs unusable > if we wanted to nit pick. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know if technically every single file needs a license header, but I suspect one would have a hard time to argue that it isn't distributed (distributable) under the GPLv2 given the prominent COPYING file that has been there forever. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/osm2pgsql-and-mod-tile-have-moved-to-git-tp5755604p5755710.html Sent from the Developer Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
