Hello,

there are missing licenses in some source files in upstream project
I'm packaging for Debian.

There is just license in the "main" source file.

Is it fine?

Or should I edit these files and add missing licenses (copy & paste
from "main" file)?

Thanks for advice.

Dominik Smatana


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Wed, 2009-03-18 at 14:20 +0100, Dominik Smatana wrote:
> Hello,
>
> there are missing licenses in some source files in upstream project
> I'm packaging for Debian.
>
> There is just license in the "main" source file.
>
> Is it fine?
>
> Or should I edit these files and add missing licenses (copy & paste
> from "main" file)?

If you think the licencing of those files is not clear then you should
ask the copyright holder or upstream maintainer to make it clear rather
than making your own guess.

Ben.

On 11693 March 1977, Dominik Smatana wrote:

> Or should I edit these files and add missing licenses (copy & paste
> from "main" file)?

Talk to upstream. Unless you have written the files it is *NOT* yours to
declare them being licensed in whatever way.

--
bye, Joerg
<vorlon> hmm, I should fill in the buildds box for sparc and make it
flash red and green


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Hello,

thank you for answers.. I'll contact upstream author.

One more "license-newbie" question:

In some upstream source files there is just one single line comment at
beginning:

// Please see included LICENSE.TXT

licensecheck says "UNKNOWN" of course...

Is such reference to external file sufficient for source files to be
packed for Debian?

Or should they begin with FULL license included inside?


Thanks.
Dominik Smatana


On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> wrote:
> On 11693 March 1977, Dominik Smatana wrote:
>
>> Or should I edit these files and add missing licenses (copy & paste
>> from "main" file)?
>
> Talk to upstream. Unless you have written the files it is *NOT* yours to
> declare them being licensed in whatever way.
>
> --
> bye, Joerg
> <vorlon> hmm, I should fill in the buildds box for sparc and make it
> * * * * * * * * flash red and green
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:51:25AM +0100, Dominik Smatana wrote:
> Hello,
>
> thank you for answers.. I'll contact upstream author.
>
> One more "license-newbie" question:
>
> In some upstream source files there is just one single line comment at
> beginning:
>
> // Please see included LICENSE.TXT
>
> licensecheck says "UNKNOWN" of course...
>
> Is such reference to external file sufficient for source files to be
> packed for Debian?
>
> Or should they begin with FULL license included inside?

Did you ever see the full text of the GPL (any version) at the top of a
source file? A reference to the licence is enough, so long as the
referenced file really is included. I would recommend to upstream that
they include a copyright statement (year and owner) in each file, though.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
Never attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by stupidity.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

(We're now in ‘debian-legal’ territory; please follow up there.)

Dominik Smatana <dominik.smatana@gmail.com> writes:

> One more "license-newbie" question:
>
> In some upstream source files there is just one single line comment at
> beginning:
>
> // Please see included LICENSE.TXT
>
> licensecheck says "UNKNOWN" of course...
>
> Is such reference to external file sufficient for source files to be
> packed for Debian?

What is needed is an explicit copyright notice and grant of license.
An example:

Copyright 2009 Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>
You have permission to copy, modify, and redistribute under the
terms of the WTFPL. For full license terms, see LICENSE.txt.

That is, we need the copyright status (who holds it, when did it
begin) and explicit grant of license (what the recipient is permitted
to do with the work) to be unambiguous for every part of the work. Or
in other words, you need enough explicit information, from the
copyright holder, to write the ‘debian/copyright’ file.

If the referenced file has *all* of that, and every part of the work
is unambiguously covered by it, it's enough.

Too often, though, such files are a set of license *terms* only (e.g.
the text of the GPL), with no copyright status or explicit *grant* of
license. That's not enough for Debian to know the rights of
recipients: mere inclusion of license terms is not a grant of license
under those terms.

--
“I hope some animal never bores a hole in my head and lays its |
` eggs in my brain, because later you might think you're having a |
_o__) good idea but it's just eggs hatching.� —Jack Handey |
Ben Finney


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org