I'm reviewing Djblets: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487098 which is a utility library used by ReviewBoard [1]
The upstream website: http://code.google.com/p/reviewboard/wiki/Djblets states "Djblets is under the MIT license."
However, the upstream tarball does not contain a license file. Only some of the files within the tarball contain license headers. I believe that every file with a "Copyright" also contains an MIT license grant.
(There's also an embedded copy of jquery, which is dual licensed MIT and GPL)
The setup.py does state "MIT" in the license field, in the usual place for such metadata (although said file is itself GPLv2 licensed).
Is this a problem for Fedora inclusion?
Thanks Dave
On 05/13/2009 04:05 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
However, the upstream tarball does not contain a license file. Only some of the files within the tarball contain license headers. I believe that every file with a "Copyright" also contains an MIT license grant.
(There's also an embedded copy of jquery, which is dual licensed MIT and GPL)
The setup.py does state "MIT" in the license field, in the usual place for such metadata (although said file is itself GPLv2 licensed).
Is this a problem for Fedora inclusion?
Well, you should ask upstream to fix any code files missing copyright and license attribution. Barring that, they should at least clarify to you what the license is on the unmarked files.
Without any sort of statement as to the overall code license (a mention on the project's website, or an email from upstream would suffice), we cannot assume we have any permissions on those files, thus, they're non-free.
~spot
-
David Malcolm -
Tom Callaway