taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: [...] >>> From e1f288dee780b374fc2162eb39d96a50d64964c1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: =?UTF-8?q?Taylan=20Ulrich=20Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer?= >>> <taylanbayi...@gmail.com> >>> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:58:25 +0100 >>> Subject: [PATCH 3/3] gnu: Add mesa-demos. >>> >>> * gnu/packages/gl.scm (mesa-demos): New variable. >> >> [...] >> >>> + ;; The package contains many source files without a license, some >>> + ;; instances of the expat license, and some X11 style licenses by SGI, >>> so >>> + ;; we consider it to be collectively under the X11 license. >> >> Is there a top-level ‘LICENSE’ or ‘COPYING’ or ‘COPYRIGHT’ file? If >> there is, then the intent is most likely that the files without a >> license headers are covered by whatever this top-level file says. >> >> If there is really no indication, that would make the software non-free. > > Sadly, there is no such file. > > Debian has it as a "source package", and has a Copyright file assembled > for it: > > http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/m/mesa-demos/mesa-demos_8.0.1-2_copyright Do the files without a license mentioned in the comment above appear in Debian’s copyright file? Or are they just removed from the Debian package(s)? According to <http://libreplanet.org/wiki/NONFSDG#mesademos> there are two demos that should be removed. > It builds the mesa-utils and mesa-utils-extra packages from this source > package. Do we have to do something similar? No idea. I would say no until there’s a need for it. Thanks, Ludo’.
