2011/8/5 Benoît Knecht <[email protected]> > Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > * Benoît Knecht <[email protected]> [110804 23:03]: > > > Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > > > * Benoît Knecht <[email protected]> [110804 20:54]: > > > > > I've seen that, but they need to make that perfectly clear in the > > > > > license header of each file in the tarball. An email sent to you > and > > > > > reproduced in the debian/copyright file is not enough. > > > > > > > > There is nothing special about the source files. There is a need to > > > > have a license, there is no need that this license statement must be > > > > in the files itself or even in the tarball. > > > > > > I don't get what you mean by "there is no need to have a license". > > > > Where does this "no" come from? > > >From some crazy neuron misfiring in my brain, I guess. Sorry about > that :\ > > > > A software distributed without a license is always presumed to be > > > non-free. I do agree that the license doesn't have to be in the file > > > itself, but then there should at least be a license file in the tarball > > > stating what the license of all the included files is; and if there is > a > > > license statement in the file (as it is the case now), it should state > > > all the rights granted to the user. Right now, the header says you're > > > free to distribute these files, and somewhere else one of the copyright > > > holder (in a private email, as far as I can tell) says you can do > pretty > > > much whatever you want with those files. I don't think that's an > > > acceptable license grant; it's confusing at best. > > > > It's indeed confusing and not ideal. But if all the permissions were > > properly given then this would be no show-stopper. The problem in this > > example (apart from debian/copyright being incomplete and > > apperently getting some number wrong) is that the mail given is not so > > clear to give this additional permissions and that the author of that > > mail might not be able to give permissions for all the code (due to > > there being multiple authors, as you pointed out). > > > > > There are three contributors (according to debian/copyrigh, not all of > > > them are copyright holders, it's not clear why) listed in aescrypt.c > for > > > example, so we'd need a statement from all the copyright holders, > > > preferably somewhere publically accessible. I still think it's way > > > easier to get upstream to fix the license headers. > > > > It's easier for everyone involved except the one who has to explain > > upstream what exactly we want in those files, convince them to add > > that and then repeat those two steps till it is done... > > That's true. Ali, if you don't want to do this, or if you need some > help, let me know. > > Thank you for clear reply, i sent a mail to upstream and i hope that he will do necessary change to the header files that contain, the incomplete License text.
Regards, > Cheers, > > -- > Benoît Knecht > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [email protected] > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected] > > -- Ali MEZGANI *N*etwork *E*ngineering/*S*ecurity http://www.nativelabs.org/
