Re: Fedora Extras License Audit

[Patrice Dumas <pertusus free fr>]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 03:16:24PM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> As part of our ongoing committment to Open Source, Fedora Extras is
> undergoing a license audit of the packages contained within it. We do
> this for several reasons:
> 
> 1. To ensure that we don't have any packages containing licenses that do
> not meet the Fedora licensing standards.

I take that opportunity to ask a few questions for cases that seem
unclear to me.

Do we consider files with copyright or a mention of an author and no 
license to be problematic, or to be covered by the main license (if such
a thing exists)? Files copyrighted, but without license should be 
considered to be under a restrictive license (no modification nor 
redistribution). However, when the remaining of the package is 
consistently under a given license and the authors are the same I
consider that the notice is missing, but that the main license cover the 
files. Is it right?

Do we consider files with incomplete license notice (when a complete
notice exists, like for the GPL) to be problematic?

--
Pat