Jack Jansen wrote: > On the other thread: will including the copyright > notices/acknowledgements in the documentation be good enough if we don't > always ship the documentation? This is exactly my concern. It is essentially for people producing binary distributions to decide how they want this to be organized. > Or should we put this in a special > section that is always shipped, even with binary installers that don't > include documentation? For the specific case in question, I think MAL's suggestion of adding yet another file is sufficient - maintainers of binary distributions then need to collect all those text files and distribute them. Complying with the various licenses is really something that the packagers most solve for themselves - the source distribution can only prepare things in a way that makes complying simple. Of course, if the license says that you must have certain words in the documentation of a binary distribution, then you really must have those words somewhere: either in text files that you "declare" to be documentation, or (probably more to the spirit of these clauses) in a place where users of the binary distribution won't overlook them. My feeling is that this can get quite annoying both for people producing binary distributions, as well as for people using them. So I would rather negotiate terms with the authors, or consider rejection of contributions that have such clauses. Of course, if nobody but me is annoyed by such clauses, I won't fight windmills. Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4