Hi folks, I'd like to get your views on the following topic. Let's suppose that a package got previously ACCEPTED into the archive, but with a rather monolithic “package is licensed under $foo's term” copyright file.
But then, while writing a complete copyright file, with all copyright holders and license texts, it appears that some files lack a proper license statement (like say “license: gpl”), or proper copyright notices. Or that some files are even non-free (in the sense of the classical “you might use this file with no restriction”, but neither modification or redistribution are explicitly allowed). In those cases, it looks to me that the intent of being free is quite clear, and that there's no strong problem, like a stupid patent, or a wanted-to-be-proprietary license. And since the package is already in the archive, it looks like no regression to me to upload the updated packages, while upstream is being notified of the possible problems, so that those problematic parts get clarified. On the other hand, we're talking about uploading not 100%-DFSG-free content, but it would feel a bit hard to request the removal of the current package until all bits are clarified upstream. There are also some parts that might not have any copyright/license, but one then can assume that the global/package-wide terms apply. For a concrete example, see libgphoto2's debian/copyright (unstable branch in git), look for “NONE”, “TODO”, and “DFSG” tokens. I've also been postponing uploading hugin for similar reasons (I was thinking of an svn snapshot, which would be in all cases way better than the current oudated version), but maybe I should just go ahead? Comments welcome. Mraw, KiBi.
pgplYEUK0BQRS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-phototools-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-phototools-devel
