Comment 3 for bug 1341589

Ian,

Thank you for looking at this on such short notice.

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 05:50:08AM -0000, Ian Booth wrote:
> > src/code.google.com/p/go.net/html/charset/testdata/
> > has no included license permitting redistribution. It appears to have
> > come from the
> > referenced W3C URL, which appears licensed under the W3C documentation
> > license that prohibits modification, contrary to DFSG.
> >
> > src/github.com/binary132/gojsonschema/json_schema_test_suite
> > has unknown copyright holder and no license for redistribution.

> I have not done these; excluding these files will not affect the
> passing of the juju-core test suite.

Do we need a juju-release-tools task on this bug then, so that these are
stripped from the juju-core tarball releases?

> > src/launchpad.net/godeps:
> > no license for redistribution (and no copyright statement).
>
> We don't distribute godeps so nothing to do AFAIK.

These files are present in the 1.20.0 release tarball. I was working
against this since before the 1.20.1 release. If it's gone now, then
that's fine.

> > src/launchpad.net/gomaasapi:
> > not all files have a license statement that
> > apply to them (and no general licensing statement that clearly applies
> > to all files).
> >
>
> Done. Although the only file I saw without a copyright header was the
> Makefile. Do we need one for that?

Also README, which is copyrightable.

There must be a license which applies to everything that is
copyrightable, since copyright applies by default. Without a license,
copyrightable files without a license are not redistributable.

A LICENSE file in the directory would be sufficient. For minor
copyrightable files that don't have an explicit statement, it could
reasonably be implied that a general license specified in the top-level
directory applies to them. I don't think COPYING and COPYING.LESSER are
sufficient here, as both are present, it isn't clear which applies, and
there isn't a statement that actually applies the license (as opposed to
the license text itself).

> > src/launchpad.net/goyaml:
> > not clear on this. LICENSE.libyaml appears to
> > have no corresponding source files. Is this redundant now? What
> > copyright statement, licensing and mandatory statements apply to each
> > file?
>
> No changes made by me. I think Gustavo has clarified the issue?

I've not seen this. Gustavo, please could you clarify here?

I don't have easy visibility of the entire licensing delta against the
tree I checked, so I guess I'll wait before I verify everything.

Thanks,

Robie