Chiara Marmo <chiara.ma...@u-psud.fr> writes:
> The license is clearly identified in the COPYING[2] file
Thank you for linking to the file; the document there is the standard
GNU Library General Public License version 2. Note that file is only the
text of a particular set of license conditions.
What *grants* license to the recipient is the text, identifiably written
by the copyright holders, expressing a statement similar to:
Copyright © 2007–2009 Angela Hacker
This is Aravis, you may modify and/or redistribute this work under
the terms of the GNU Library General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 or (at your option)
any later version.
Because granting license is not just a matter of including the COPYING
file, the document containing the LGPL recommends:
How to Apply These Terms to Your New Libraries
[…]
To apply these terms, attach the following notices to the library.
It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most
effectively convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should
have at least the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full
notice is found.
Because the Debian Project needs to be confident about exactly what
license conditions we operate under for modifying and redistributing the
work, and what license Debian recipients may exercise, a clear and
explicit written grant of license from the copyright holders is needed.
> To avoid misunderstanding, does the license statement be included in
> each project file?
The decision is ultimately up to the Debian FTP Masters, and what they
consider to be sufficient to demonstrate the grant of license conditions
in each specific work.
My opinion, based on a quick perusal of the work you presented, is that
the grant is sufficiently clear.
--
\ “A thorough reading and understanding of the Bible is the |
`\ surest path to atheism.” —Donald Morgan |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
