Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

License info missing from files #11

Open
ausil opened this issue Oct 6, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

License info missing from files #11

ausil opened this issue Oct 6, 2023 · 2 comments

Comments

@ausil
Copy link

ausil commented Oct 6, 2023

Some files without license information were identified when reviewing for inclusion in Fedora.

Android.bp
Makefile
pd-mapper.service.in
servreg_loc.c
servreg_loc.h
servreg_loc.qmi

I am not sure that the .bp and .in files need or can have license info in them. The rest should have an indicator of the license. I have assumed that they are BSD the same as the rest of the project except for lzma_decomp.c which says it is public domain

@jlinton
Copy link
Contributor

jlinton commented Oct 6, 2023

There isn't a generic SPDX for generic public domain declarations.

https://wiki.spdx.org/view/Legal_Team/Decisions/Dealing_with_Public_Domain_within_SPDX_Files

INAL, but the WTFPL might be a valid relicense identifier here. The original author didn't make any authorship/etc limitations in their PD declaration, probably under the assumption people should be able to hack it into their projects as I did here.

@jlinton
Copy link
Contributor

jlinton commented Oct 6, 2023

Although the xz package in fedora, just lists it as "Public Domain" https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xz/blob/rawhide/f/xz.spec the acceptable license guide in fedora suggests "new files" be reviewed but has a formal license type.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/all-allowed/

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants