This page is work in progress. This page is part of Validos’ collaboration with the Double Open Project. First release planned for 31 October 2020.
Validos ry applies the following conclusions in creating curated data. Some example data can be found on GitHub under Double Open. The example data should be treated as a work in progress.
LC1 - Files with No License Headers
Files with no license headers are considered to be licensed with the closest main license, as long as there are no other indications. e.g., a library or folder within a package may contain an open source license and 10 files of which the most important one contains a license header and the rest do not have any license header. In this case all the other files are considered to be licensed with the “main license” of that folder, unless there are contrary indications.
LC2 - Modifications to Files
Modifications to files are considered to be under the same license as the rest of the file, unless otherwise is indicated.
LC3 - Licenses Do Not Automatically Change or Automatically Attach
Files are considered licensed with the information contained in the file, to the extent there is no information to the contrary. The existence a GPL-file in the same package is not contrary information. Licenses of files are considered not to have changed (or not to change automatically) when the whole package is licensed with another license or contains files licensed with another package, even if the license of the file would allow addition of new conditions or new license.
LC4 - Software Copyleft in Relation to Firmware
Firmware, which is intended to be placed on hardware, is separate from a software intended to be run on a computer processor. As such it does not form a derivative of software intended for running on a computer processor.
LC5 - Autoconf and Other Build Tools
GNU libtools and GNU autoconf tools (and Bison parser files), when contained in packages, are assumed to be used as build tools, unless there is indication to the contrary. GPL-licensing of build tools is considered not to pose requirements to the license, as regards distribution of the rest of the software built with those tools, even if the tools are contained in the same package.
When a file contains the autoconf-exception. the exception is applied, if there exists, in the same package, a file that states “generated by autoconf” (it is not necessary to check whether the file actually is generated by autoconf, the statement is enough).
The Bison exception, if it exists, is applied if there are files that state “made by GNU Bison” and the version of Bison 1.24 or higher. While the wording of the exception sometimes refers only to “use”, it is concluded that it means to allow all exploitation rights granted by copyright (copying, modification and publication).
LC6 - Dual License
We conclude that the wording “dual license” or use of “or” means that the licensee may choose between the licenses offered, unless there is contrary indications.
LC7 - Short License References
If the license text is not provided, the applicable version is that which is provided by the project that has introduced the respective license. If there is no such project or organization, or it is likely that such initial publisher is no longer maintaining the license, the source of the license text is Open Source Initiative’s list of approved licenses. E.g., the MIT-license text, if not otherwise indicated, means the MIT-license text approved by the OSI (www.opensource.org).
LC8 - GPL and LGPL Version Incompleteness
When there is incomplete information regarding a license’s version, a single point (e.g., source file) defining the license version completely is enough, provided there is no conflicting information. If the version is totally unspecified in every place, then the rule on all LGPL and GPL license versions applies: user may choose the version of the given license. If there is no single point that defines the license version, and the project web pages refer to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html and the date of the package is earlier than 29 June 2007 and the project is inactive (does not reply to queries), then we consider GPL version 2 to be the correct license.
LC9 - Source Code as Documentation
Provision of source code to the licensee / end-user fulfils the requirement to provide the copyright, license and similar notices to the licensee / end-user.
For a more specific view on the qualifications please see the IFOSSLR article “Package Review as a Part of Free and Open Source Software Compliance” by Martin von Willebrand and Mikko-Pekka Partanen here.