On Wednesday 18 December 2013 21:35:33 Christophe Giboudeaux wrote: > On Wednesday 18 December 2013 19:50:58 Alex Merry wrote: > > On 18/12/13 17:54, Aurélien Gâteau wrote: > > > We need to have at least a COPYING file in there, with the full content > > > of > > > the license. > > > > I believe this was already done before the split. > > I added COPYING files in each frameworks which have GPL files, COPYING.LIB > files in frameworks with LGPL files and COPYING.GPL3 in two repos. > > afaik, the BSD and MIT/X11 licensed files don't need a full text license and > the MPL and BSD-3 clauses files almost all have a dual license. > > Now, we also have countless problematic files which don't have any license > or bogus headers. > > See the attached file (created before the split) thanks for the list. Looking at it, it seems to be dominated by code in testing. Can we resolve those by just declare them as non-copyrightable (below threshold of originality).
What strikes me is that there's one file I recently pushed and our git system didn't complain. I would have expected that a file without copyright cannot be pushed. Cheers Martin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
