Many prjs have license files in home or license directory, this prj does not in the few binary archives I opened.
I did find some buried man page files that appeared to be GNU licenses (but that seems like inappropriate place) and in source archive.
From a legal standpoint most license require licenses to accompany a package and that they not be altered … but the usual copy* license files are not on the binary archives (that I opened) and (if various things work out) I'd like to redistribute as a captive internal compiler to my company's software and that means having appropriate use and display of licenses.
I assume I'm correct about this license issue and as a prj outsider, I'd rather not be the one to 'add' license files to a package that should have them as it might be seen legally as making an inappropriate alteration plus I might get it wrong in some way.
Is anyone listening in a position to say why this is for the binary distributions or is this a no-brainer that should I bring this license issue into the 'Feature request' forum as a request to add?
Well, our license files are in project's root folder. I agree, that those files should be put (along with the license remark files of the optionional SKDs, when installed) into binary packages and source packages, too.
I see this more as a no-brainer and yes, please open a "Feature Request" for it.
Log in to post a comment.
Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:
You seem to have CSS turned off.
Please don't fill out this field.