How to use (free!) sources of other projects without copyright/license information in file?

[Michael Tautschnig]

Dear debian-legal,

While reviewing the ax_emergency_listen package [1] I found that several source
files lack both copyright and license information. The reason for this lack,
however, is that they were taken verbatim from ax25-apps *where there is no such
information in source files*, as upstream explained to me (Guido, CC'ed) in
private.

Both of the packages claim to be GPL'ed as per COPYING, and I wonder whether
this is acceptable for Debian. Probably it is, as ax25-apps is in main.

But how would one, in this case, trace back the origin of those files?

Thanks a lot in advance,
Michael

PS.: Please keep Guido and me CC'ed, neither of us is subscribed.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2011/05/msg00020.html



pgpFoLoZkskEL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [m...@debian.org: Re: RFS: php-clamav]

[Michael Tautschnig]

Hi all,

Could someone ...

> HI and thanks for your response.
> 
> Yes I have subscribe (
> http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=argo...@gmail.com) but it's my
> first upload :-).
> 
> For history, php-clamav is a fork of actual and unmaintained php-clamavlib.
> It's break compatibility with older version of php and clamav.
> But I was fix bugs, and warning compilation.
> 
> And I search a sponsor for this "little package".
> 
> For my name, sorry but I don't like show my real name on internet.
> 

... please clarify, whether this is acceptable at all for copyright purposes?
(resending to debian-legal for that matter)

Thanks in advance,
Michael

PS.: Sorry for cross-posting.



pgpEgcg22H1NX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

What kind of copyright/license statement is required here?

[Michael Tautschnig]

Dear list,

I'm the maintainer of the sat4j package, which, in the upstream SVN, includes
lots of test data (plain text files, think of them as mathematical equations).
Currently these lack any kind of copyright/license statement, so I remove them
before building the tar ball. It would, however, be desirable to package them as
well, and upstream is willing to do whatever is needed have them included. So,
my question is:

- What kind of copyright/license statement is required? Should the usual (in
  this case Eclipse Public) license header be added, even though this is not
  "source code"?
- Should be it be added to each and every file?

Thanks,
MIchael

PS.: Please CC me, I'm not subscribed.



pgp0feMTIDTSe.pgp
Description: PGP signature