Benoît, i receive a message from upstream telling that he can not actually modify the source code, he said that if i want to do that for a version i have to branch from the current code, with his complete approval.
I'm little confused about this, may i branch software ? and host it somewhere ? Kind regards, 2011/8/5 mezgani ali <[email protected]> > > > 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/ > > -- Ali MEZGANI *N*etwork *E*ngineering/*S*ecurity http://www.nativelabs.org/
