Re: license on upstream web site, not in tarball
On 28/08/14 19:28, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> If an upstream publishes a license (or link to GPL) and copyright on
> their web site but not in their tarball, how do people feel about that?
>
> Should it just be noted in a comment in debian/copyright?
Copying emails/etc. into debian/copyright is considered to be sufficient
to document clarification/relicensing, so copying a license declaration
from the upstream website into debian/copyright seems like it ought to
be sufficient here - it's effectively the upstream relicensing from the
implied null license ("copyright owned by someone, all rights reserved")
to an actual license.
> Or should the packager create a repackaged upstream tarball with a copy
> of the web site text combined with the contents of the original source
> tarball?
I very much hope that's considered to be a waste of time. If you're
going to spend time on this, spend it on asking upstream to make the
license explicit in their future releases.
S
Reply to: