Re: declaring a license

[Ben Finney]

Herbert Fortes  writes:

> I am doing a QA for python-irc[0] and the tarball does not have a
> COPYING/License file. The statement is done in setpu.py file and
> PyPi[1] only.

You have already done the action I'd recommend: convince upstream to put
an explicit grant of license prominently in the code base. Thank you.

> Now I have an email that explicit declares one License to all project
> I can put the file in debian/. In the tarball you only see that in
> setup.py file.
>
> Is that enough ?

To resolve the issue not just Debian recipients but for every recipient,
upstream needs to put that license grant text in a prominent place (e.g.
a top-level ‘COPYING’ file) in the released code base. Have they
indicated they will do that?

Until that happens, yes it's traditionally accepted for Debian packages
to contain the grant of license text in the ‘debian/copytright’ file.

My recommendation is to put that text in the non-standard
“License-Grant” field of the appropriate “Files” stanza.

-- 
 \ “Broken promises don't upset me. I just think, why did they |
  `\ believe me?” —Jack Handey |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney

Re: declaring a license

[Ian Jackson]

Herbert Fortes writes ("declaring a license"):
> I am doing a QA for python-irc[0] and the tarball
> does not have a COPYING/License file. The statement
> is done in setpu.py file and PyPi[1] only.
> 
> [0] - https://packages.qa.debian.org/p/python-irc.html
> [1] - https://pypi.python.org/pypi/irc/
> 
> I talked[2] with the upstream by github 'Issues'
> about that (no COPYING/License file ) and a version
> (12.1) which had a License file declaring one
> license (LGPL) and a setpu.py file declaring the
> actual license (MIT) in the same tarball.
> 
> [2] - https://github.com/jaraco/irc/issues/106
> 
> Now I have an email that explicit declares one
> License to all project I can put the file in debian/.
> In the tarball you only see that in setup.py file.
> 
> Is that enough ?

I think it is.  I would:

 * Use curl to download copies of the two github issues #99 and #106,
   and put copies of the resulting html in the source package,
   in debian/ somewhere.

 * Write a debian/copyright file stating that the whole package is
   MIT, and containing a copy of the MIT licence.  I would copy
   the text from https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT.

Good luck.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson    These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Inclusion of PDF with CC Attr 3.0 license

[Ian Jackson]

Francesco Poli writes ("Re: Inclusion of PDF with CC Attr 3.0 license"):
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
> > It is not like it is hard to add the attribution
> > required by the license.
> 
> Well, in my own personal opinion, CC-by-v3.0 requirements on
> attribution are not so easy and practical to comply with [1].
> This is one of the reasons why I believe that this license fails to
> meet the DFSG.

You have forgotten to add the usual rider, that you should add when
you are putting forward an opinion which is contrary to Debian's
established policy.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson    These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.