What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
A LICENSE file or some other method of conveying license terms would be
expected; the only mention of licensing is on the main project web page.
Since the default 2-clause BSD license linked to on the main page only has
placeholders for the "OWNER" and "YEAR" fields, this doesn't convey any
information about this particular code's copyright. At the very least, the full
license and copyright information should be included in a LICENSE or COPYRIGHT
file in each distribution, (see http://www.opensource.org/faq#publish-code)
though it is also advisable to add a small licensing header to each source file.
Including this information in the source will also make it easier to get this
software packaged for more distributions, since some require individual license
files for each BSD-licensed package. (see
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pkgbuild#license for example)
What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
This applies to all downloads that I have looked at, as well as the source
repository.
Original issue reported on code.google.com by whitel...@gmail.com on 9 Aug 2011 at 8:37
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
whitel...@gmail.comon 9 Aug 2011 at 8:37