Follow-up Comment #12, task #14529 (project administration):
Pavel (Kharitonov) wrote: "Now, all files, including documentation, makefiles
and configure scripts, should have valid license and copyright notices --- not
just .c and .py files."
Is that savannah's rule for everybody? My questions comes out just because I'm
curious. So I searched savannah for "real time". A first instance, I was
acquainted with, has been "carbonkernel", whose first member is Loic Dachary,
a name you should be acquainted with, I suppose.
Well, just by way of example, if you browse that project sources repository
and check Makefile.am, Makefile.in, configure.in and configure, at the very
beginning, you'll see that they are the same as in RTAI. In particular
Makefile.am and configure.in have no copyright-licence mentioned while
Makefile.in and configure have one (likely as generated by autotools).
Since in "carbonkernel" Makefile.am and configure.in have no copyright-licence
mentioned, it seems your theorem above either fails.
If you surf a few other projects you'll see that "carbonkernel" is not the
only instance.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?14529>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
