Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=470173
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com Blocks|182235 |
--- Comment #10 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2008-11-10 12:47:34 EDT --- When no other information is available, and we have a high degree of confidence that the website is maintained/created by the copyright holder of the licensed, we can use it as licensing intent (or versioning intent).
It's always preferrable to get upstream to clarify this specifically, which you've done. Ideally, you'll want to get upstream to specifically note this in the source tarball, with proper code attribution (see: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-howto.html , search for "copying permission statement").
Lifting FE-Legal.