On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 04:06:11PM +0100, Paul Cager wrote: > On Tue, July 3, 2007 8:38 am, Andreas Barth wrote: > > Explain it in debian/copyright, that's the proper place (the source > > files don't actually need license statement, even though of course it > > helps transparence and is therefore encouraged). > > I didn't realise that. I had assumed that each source file *had* to have a > license declaration in it. > > So if the source files do not have license declarations, we are still OK > if there is a "COPYING" (or similar) file in the tarball? What about if > there is no such file but there is an explicit license declaration on > upstream's web site?
As long as you have a statement from upstream which copyright and which license applies and this license is available in debian/copyright, you should be fine. You should get upstream to fix it anyway (but that seems to have happened in your case). E.g. people sometimes don't really care about copyright and licenses when they copy together code (there should be enough evidence of that in Debian's BTS) but most of the time they are also too lazy to remove the copyright and license statements contained. Which gives people a chance to latter find out where the code came from. If the files have neither statement, good luck with that. Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
