Follow-up Comment #3, task #14997 (project administration): Hello, Jan!
> I realise that `public-domain' may not be good enough? Yes, public domain is OK <https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html>, the files just should mention their status and the original copyright holders. To tell the truth, I've just missed that note. > So, if it's really problematic I could try to find out if we can drop it. No, I don't think it is a major problem. I think we may assume that later contributors made their changes under the same conditions, i.e. public domain. > These also were taken from GNU Guile... Would it be an idea to ask the Guile developers? Yes, perhaps asking the Guile developers is the right thing to do. In fact, this may be a conflict with GNU maintainer guidelines (like GNU software should use the latest versions of GNU licenses, hence the LGPLv3). > http://lilypond.org/janneke/mes-0.17-rc.tar.gz Thank you! I still can see some issues: lib/string/agrz-count.c says it's under the LGPLv2.1+; scaffold/tinycc/11_precedence.c has no notices (note that I didn't check all files in the tarball). As I mentioned, images should have copyright and license notices, too; generally, if file format doesn't allow such comments, they should be written in a README file in the same directory with those files. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?14997> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
