Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
Seems like most people agree with this.
Simple policy decision, then, designed to deal with unlicensed, and
therefore presumably public domain, spec files: "If you take a spec
file from someone else, be sure that attribution is included. If it
is *not* included, include the following text: 'based on a specfile by
<foo> at the <bar> project.' If you don't do this, you're a schmuck,
and the punishment is to (a) fix it immediately, and (b) wear the Hat
of Schmuck." And yes, put it in the review process.
As far as actual licensing goes, I still think it's a matter for Spot.
Attribution is pretty much implicit in every licensing scheme anywhere
anyway.
Have we had or do we know of any actual complaints about this or are we
oiling a wheel that doesn't actually squeak? I can appreciate the
perception of the problem but I haven't seen anyone actually complain.
-Mike
|
