Re: Rejected Package - Licence question
Hi Frank (and all others),
thanks for the clarifications!
Frank Küster wrote:
>> An earlier version of the package is already in Debian
>> and it also contains the file Manual.texi with the same
>> copyright information, but the file was only in the
>> source package while the new version now contains a
>> -doc package which allows to install the manual.
> In other words, the non-free license was just overlooked in the old
I think so, yes.
> No, you have to remove it from the orig.tar.gz, or...
> > - Anything else?
> have it relicensed.
... which means that the upstream author has to *replace* the
questionable section with a reference to, for example, the GPL,
>> Also, I already contacted the upstream author, and it was not
>> really intended to make the Manual non-free by this copyright
>> statement; any hints how to make the manual DFSG-compliant
>> in the future are welcome (I suppose a valid solution is to
>> simply remove the copyright statement from the file).
> Err, no, that would make it undistributable even in non-free.
Does this mean that a COPYRIGHT file in the upstream package root
directory does not automatically apply to *all* files of the package?
Does each and every file need to contain at least a link
to the licence which applies to it? I mean, this could be difficult,
at least when generated files come into play... (e.g. generated
html documentation which is already shipped with the upstream package).
> The best option would be to license the manual under the same license as
> the software. In principle, it's also possible to use a different
> license, but that only gives people trouble when making a derivative
> work. If upstream insists that the documentation needs a license that's
> specifically designed for documentation (not programs), try to persuade
> him of the opposite, using the arguments found in -legal archive.
I think thats not an issue, he actually asked me already if I can give
some hints :-)