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

Unclear license information regarding copyleft


(Please excuse if the below analysis is partly or even completely wrong,
reading about licensing and copyright issues often makes me quite confused)

I'm the maintainer of the package dwarf-fortress in non-free. The
package as a whole is clearly non-free as the license states that „you
may redistribute the *unmodified* binary and accompanying files“ and the
source code to the contained executable is not provided.

The package also contains a shared library called libgraphics.so and the
corresponding source code. The library links to (among others) SDL and
GTK which are licensed under the LGPL-2.1, AIUI this means that
libgraphics.so and its source code have to licensed under the LGPL. (due
to condition 2, correct?)

I could not find an explicit statement in the upstream tarball that
clarifies what license applies to the library in question. There is a
file called 'sdl license.txt' that contains a copy of the LGPL-2.1,
which hints that the author is aware that their work is in some way
affected by this license.

As there are some problems[1] with the compiled shared library as
distributed by upstream (and because compiling things ourselves is
always nicer) I would like to rebuild the library when building the
Debian package, though I'm not sure if it is clear in the given
situation that it is legal to recompile the library and distribute the
resulting shared library. But maybe someone smarter than me can
enlighten me.

[1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=898175

The files mentioned above can be found in the source package [2] at
these paths:
 * libgraphics.so: {amd64,i386}/libs/libgraphics.so
 * libgraphics.so source code: {amd64,i386}/g_src
 * sdl license: {amd64,i386}/sdl/sdl license.txt

[2]: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/dwarf-fortress


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: