Follow-up Comment #7, task #12728 (project administration):
Joan, my previous explanations may not have been clear. Let me try again. It
is ideal but not 100% required for nontrivial files to have a license header.
What's required is for all files to have a clear statement of their licensing
state (and that they be under a free, GPL-compatible, license).
So, in the case at hand, the appropriate thing would be to just explain in an
accompanying README that the config, kdedrc, etc. files come from the xxx
package and are licensed under the yyy license. You don't have to correct
their licensing mistakes in the files, you just have to be clear on what basis
we believe that the files are free.
As you (adrelanos) suggest, it is definitely incorrect to insert your own
copyright on files you haven't modified, and that is fine.
Hope this helps. Thanks,
Karl
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?12728>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
