Jani Monoses jani
Fri Jan 11 07:14:40 EST 2008

Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2008 12:10 PM, Jani Monoses <jani at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> not all sugar and related projects include up-to date data on authors
>> and licensing. The former can be inferred from git logs but the latter
>> requires going through all source files.
>> In particular sugar-artwork includes a copy of the GPL, but the sources
>> contain an LGPL and a BSD style licensed file as well.
>> I think the MaMaMedia projects also lacked licensing info last I looked.
>> Can each module author please make sure their own projects are correctly
>> carrying a complete copyright notice and if possible an AUTHORS file?

thanks to those authors who already added such clarifications in the 
past two days!
>> For getting packages in distributions the legal implications should be
>> clear and lack of copyright notices in upstream sources is blocking
>> uploads to public archives.
> Thanks a lot for reporting this Jany. Can you please open a ticket for
> each module which have problems? That would be really helpful!

sugar, sugar-base and sugar-artwork provide a copy of GPL but the source 
file headers mention the LGPL.

I was hoping authors read this list and know better their code and fix 
it or add a reminder themselves. rather than me crawling over every 
project in git and filing bugs :)

The sugar packages started to enter the ubuntu 8.04 archives, and the 
missing licenses that I overlooked were caught by the archive managers.


More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list