On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 01:12:06PM -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:25:24 (EDT), mira-gu...@users.alioth.debian.org 

+Files: ./DotEmacs
+Copyright: 2001 Fernando Lopez Lezcano <na...@ccrma.stanford.edu>
+License: no licence mentioned

uh, does no license mean "all rights reserved" and are we actually
allowed to redistribute it?

more seriously, are files in that directory installed in the binary

asking because this package was just rejected for missing copyright

I don't find the question too pedantic. And it is serious even if only shipped with source!

If files lacking licnesing do not have same copyright holder, then we cannot safely assume that it is licensed similarly (as it is someone else who then need to grant us the licensing).

If files lacking licensing do have same copyright holder as other files of same code project which is properly licensed, then it still isn't "safe" to assume same licensing, but more likely.

In both cases it is off course the best to contact the copyright holder and request an explicit statement of licensing - and (if not the same) pass that statement to the upstream maintainer for inclusion in the code project.

Kind regards,

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to