Hi, license headers for python-libnacl[1] was missing, so I asked upstream if they could confirm that all files were under ASL[2].
Upstream reply was:
Yes, as stated in clause 5 of the Apache license all files contributed to this project inherit the Apache Licence unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Do we need to get confirmation from upstream when license is ASL 2.0?
Sincerely Jonny Heggheim
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1399833#c3 [2] https://github.com/saltstack/libnacl/issues/86
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 02:16:38PM -0000, Jonny Heggheim wrote:
Hi, license headers for python-libnacl[1] was missing, so I asked upstream if they could confirm that all files were under ASL[2].
Upstream reply was:
Yes, as stated in clause 5 of the Apache license all files contributed to this project inherit the Apache Licence unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Do we need to get confirmation from upstream when license is ASL 2.0?
No (if I understand your question rightly) -- Fedora doesn't have any general requirement that all source files in a given package have license notices, regardless of what the license is.
Richard
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1399833#c3 [2] https://github.com/saltstack/libnacl/issues/86
No (if I understand your question rightly) -- Fedora doesn't have any general requirement that all source files in a given package have license notices, regardless of what the license is.
Sorry, I must have confused it with the lack of a LICENSE file.
I was sure it was mentioned in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/Li... , but I could not find it.
Jonny
-
Jonny Heggheim -
Richard Fontana