On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 12:45:27AM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > even > > when portions are copyright other people/entities. > If there is a hint to distrust what people claim about their work, > I see no way how a judge could believe a "But I was told it is" if one > did not at least check what hints one got. > If someone claims he has a license from Adobe, then well, believe him > unless you run into some statement from Adobe that they do not give > away any licenses like that. If someone just claims it is under a free > license but does not even refer to those parts having a different copyright, > then it gets unlikely enough in my eyes that one has to assume the default > of the law: no permission at all. This notion of documenting the copyright of every single line of every single file is a new development in Debian - and not a healthy one. Not documenting the copyright of bits that were incorporated by way of a binary generation is *normal*, and unless those bits are under the GPL, it's not generally a problem - except for passing Debian NEW, which seems to have taken copyright auditing ad absurdum in recent years. So no, I don't think failing to include these copyright statements in the documentation is any sort of evidence of a lack of due diligence on the part of the upstream. > And regarding > >> Since Illustrator is frequently used for producing output files > >> that are expected to be distributed, it would be reasonable to assume that > >> the output is liberally licensed and that whatever license is listed in > >> the package is in fact the correct one, with no other license attaching to > >> this output. > have you ever looked at some EULAs? > A quick look at http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ makes me think this > is quite unlikely. (If I read this correctly, some things you are > allowed to embed, but only verbatimly and for specific purposes, but the > limits are quite absurd and I'm not sure it even gives permission to > distribute for all the stuff you find in some postscript files). I've read EULAs before, sure. But the only EULA that has any bearing on this is the EULA for the version of Illustrator upstream used to generate the PDF, and that one I have not read. If this issue is important enough to you that you want to track down the EULA and verify that the embedded code isn't freely distributable/modifiable, that's your prerogative; but I stand by my statement that *Debian* should not block on such an investigation. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature