[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: license on upstream web site, not in tarball

On 28/08/14 21:09, Simon McVittie wrote:
> 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.

I agree it is always best to try and approach upstream diplomatically
about these issues.

However, if the license situation is unambiguous but just not fully
encapsulated within the tarball or repository then it is useful to have
a way to proceed quickly.

Reply to: