Zitat von Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>:
>
> These drumkits are in upstream metadata listed _without_ license:
>
> ColomboAcousticDrumkit (sf)
> EasternHop (sf)
> Electric Empire (sf)
> HardElectro (sf)
> HipHop-1 (sf)
> HipHop-2 (sf)
> Millo's MultiLayered 2 (sf)
> Synthie-1 (sf)
> VariBreaks (sf)
>
> In Debian copyright file those are listed as licensed GPL-2.
The fact that the metadata doesn't contain a license, does not imply
that these files are not GPL-2. Have you actually checked the license
of any of these?
The issue here is that information about licensing is unavailable in the
source package. Title now rephrased to not avoid assumption.
If licensing is based on external information and/or guesswork, then
that should be documented in debian/copyright.
hmm.
the "orig.tar.gz" contains this information, since it includes
"drumkits.json" which includes the licenses for each drumkit as
specified by (their) upstream(s) (which is mostly a casual short name,
rather than the full license text; however, this doesn't make the
licenses any less valid).
since "drumkits.json" is generated by a script in debian/ this might
require some additional information, so:
the licenses are obtained from the same source as the information on
how to obtain the drumkits:
"their drumkit feed" (as it is called in debian/README.source).
with "them" being upstream (hydrogen), and their "drumkit feed" being
http://www.hydrogen-music.org/feeds/drumkit_list.php
it is my understanding that this feed is generated from information
that has been directly entered by the upstreams' of the various
drumkits. i have no reason to distrust this source of information.
therefore, for me the license information *has* been added by
upstream, albeit on a separate channel, and i don't see any problem
with the licenses as stated in d/copyright)
i agree, this should probably be added to the d/README.source
