Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Just to confirm the parameters of this review, are you assuming that any > file not explicitly licensed falls under the GPL of Emacs? Or should we > flag files which have no explicit license? Quite a number of the files > in etc/ have no explicit license.
This is a very good question, I asked myself already. I tend to think that when no licensing information is given, the COPYING applies. But since I'm not a licensing specialist, I'd like a confirmation. > Also, etc/MOTIVATION contains: >> [reprinted with permission of the author >> from the Monday 19 January 1987 Boston Globe] > with no license notice given, and authorization to reprint does not > necessarily include authorization to modify. I would not be surpised this one really lacks a proper license. Thanks. -- Jérôme Marant
