Re: Missing license info in source files - fixed in upstream svn

[Bernhard R. Link]

* Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070706 17:46]:
> > I'm not sure I understand; would a "COPYING" file stating "this project
> > is licensed under..." be acceptable?
>
> In practice, there's so much software out there that just provides a
> license in the README file and no separate notices in each file that I
> don't think you're going out on much of a limb by assuming that any files
> that don't say otherwise are covered by the copyright and license in the
> general README file.

One still should do the usual minimal coherency checks. If for example
files have a different author or copyright holder specified or look
totally out of style, its better to search the web for those files
and/or seek for clarification.

> You do need to be careful of packages that just drop the GPL COPYING file
> into the distribution but don't mention a license anywhere else in the
> distribution.  Some packages like that have, in the past, not actually
> been under the GPL.  Upstream sometimes does dumb things, like put COPYING
> in the distribution just to satisfy Automake.  Unless there's some
> statement written by the author specifying what the package license is,
> it's probably worth seeking clarification.

Another case often enough gotten wrong are things like icons, which are
often just copied around. Its better to ask upstream explicitly about
them[1]. Or if it is a package were upstream is no longer available, doing
a quick google check for those file's md5sums for an explicit hint
if they are from other sources.

Hochachtungsvoll,
Bernhard R. Link

[1] After all, you should contact upstream anyway, as an very important
part of maintaining a package should be communicating about bugs,
user supplied patches, your own patches, ...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Missing license info in source files - fixed in upstream svn

[Russ Allbery]

Paul Cager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But Ben Finney said:

>> No, there needs to be an explicit grant of license explaining what
>> terms apply, and exactly which files comprise the work being licensed.

> I'm not sure I understand; would a "COPYING" file stating "this project
> is licensed under..." be acceptable?

In practice, there's so much software out there that just provides a
license in the README file and no separate notices in each file that I
don't think you're going out on much of a limb by assuming that any files
that don't say otherwise are covered by the copyright and license in the
general README file.

If you want to try to convince upstream to use better discipline about
marking each file, that's certainly fine, but I doubt it makes any real
difference given past precedent.

You do need to be careful of packages that just drop the GPL COPYING file
into the distribution but don't mention a license anywhere else in the
distribution.  Some packages like that have, in the past, not actually
been under the GPL.  Upstream sometimes does dumb things, like put COPYING
in the distribution just to satisfy Automake.  Unless there's some
statement written by the author specifying what the package license is,
it's probably worth seeking clarification.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Missing license info in source files - fixed in upstream svn

[Paul Cager]

On Tue, July 3, 2007 4:06 pm, 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?

May I ask for a bit of clarification?

Andreas Barth said:
>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).

So it looks as though it is acceptable to have files without license
declarations (provided the license is stated elsewhere).

But Ben Finney said:
>No, there needs to be an explicit grant of license explaining what
>terms apply, and exactly which files comprise the work being licensed.

I'm not sure I understand; would a "COPYING" file stating "this project is
licensed under..." be acceptable?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Missing license info in source files - fixed in upstream svn

[Ben Finney]

"Paul Cager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 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.

A grant of license is ambiguous (and therefore a greater risk for
someone exercising that license) if it's not explicitly clear to a
third party which work the license applies to.

Since the easiest way to be explicit about a grant of license on a
text file is to place a license grant prominently inside the text
file, that's what is recommended for program source code.

> 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?

No, there needs to be an explicit grant of license explaining what
terms apply, and exactly which files comprise the work being licensed.

-- 
 \ "Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?" "I think so, |
  `\ Brain, but how will we get a pair of Abe Vigoda's pants?"  -- |
_o__)_Pinky and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Missing license info in source files - fixed in upstream svn

[Frank Lichtenheld]

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]

Re: Missing license info in source files - fixed in upstream svn

[Neil Williams]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 16:06:11 +0100 (BST)
"Paul Cager" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.

Sometimes this is not possible - generated files often would not
contain a license (glade-2).
 
> 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?

As long as nothing in the source files contradicts the license.

> What about if
> there is no such file but there is an explicit license declaration on
> upstream's web site?

Most licenses require that the license is distributed alongside the
licensed work so, AFAICT, that would not be deemed to be properly
licensed.

-- 


Neil Williams
=
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/



pgpbQReARZkgx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Missing license info in source files - fixed in upstream svn

[Paul Cager]

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?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Missing license info in source files - fixed in upstream svn

[Andreas Barth]

* Paul Cager ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070702 23:04]:
> I'm packaging a couple of Java libraries where the source files do not
> have any license declarations. This is being fixed in upstream's svn
> repository.
> 
> I still want to package upstream's latest *release* rather than the head
> of svn, so is it OK just to explain the situation in
> README.Debian-source (leaving the source files without license
> declarations)?

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).


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Missing license info in source files - fixed in upstream svn

[Frank Lichtenheld]

On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:23:38PM +0100, Paul Cager wrote:
> I'm packaging a couple of Java libraries where the source files do not
> have any license declarations. This is being fixed in upstream's svn
> repository.
> 
> I still want to package upstream's latest *release* rather than the head
> of svn, so is it OK just to explain the situation in
> README.Debian-source (leaving the source files without license
> declarations)?

Hmm, I would think debian/copyright would be right place to mention the
license...

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]