Riley Baird writes: >> When writing the file, a line caught my attention, because it mentions >> that the license is "personal" and "non-exclusive": >> >> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-osg/pkg-osg.git/tree/debian/copyright?h=debian-osg-3.2&id=0e3adbf30d2b1b02710513ac22c9711f5e9d8cad#n417 > > This isn't a problem, since they give the users the rights required by > the DFSG. Personal means that they are just licensing the software to > you, non-exclusive means that they can also license it to others. > > The below sentences sound more ominous, although I'm not sure what > Debian's position on this type of clause would be: > > Except as expressly stated in this notice, no other rights or licenses, > express or implied, are granted by Apple herein, including but not > limited to any patent rights that may be infringed by your derivative > works or by other works in which the Apple Software may be > incorporated.Except as expressly stated in this notice, no other rights > or licenses, express or implied, are granted by Apple herein, including > but not limited to any patent rights that may be infringed by your > derivative works or by other works in which the Apple Software may be > incorporated. > > I realise that they can't guarantee that derivative works won't > infringe anyone else's patent, but can't they at least guarantee that > derivative works won't infringe *Apple's* patents?
Thanks Riley for your valuable insight, specially about the patent issue that I did not notice. I think that then, the safest move is to remove those files altogether from the source package, given that they are not necessary at all. Regards, Alberto