dual licensed + build generated png (GPL-2+ or CC-BY-SA-4.0+)
Hello,
I'm currently doing a review of a package Franciscarlos sent to me,
and I stumbled upon an interesting case which I would like to ask
advise about on this list.
The package in question is adapta-gtk-theme[0], tools like
licensecheck generate d/copyright as:
License: GPL-2+ or CC-BY-SA-4.0+
Looking at the files of the software, Example of that is that some
files like .sh ones are GPL-2+ and some .svg are CC-BY-SA-4.0+.
I'm assuming this can be solved by:
Files: *
Copyright: YEARS NAME
License: GPL-2+
Files: *.svg
Copyright: YEARS NAME
License: CC-BY-SA-4.0+
Although part of the build process consists of generating some png
files from the svg ones, and by using the above I would be licensing
them as GPL-2+, so...
Files: *
Copyright: YEARS NAME
License: GPL-2+
Files: *.svg *.png
Copyright: YEARS NAME
License: CC-BY-SA-4.0+
Should be able to do it, right? I'm not sure about the multiple
entries on the Files, I can't see a mention of that in DEP3[1].
Considering that the d/copyright above is ok, there's still one thing
missing, upstream don't explicitly mentions any license for png files,
so am I correct that as long as we respect the svg license, we can
chose the one we want to for the pngs and upstream doesn't have to
care about that? And in that case, the license would obviously be the
same as of the svg.
Oh, there is another thing, upstream does not mention its name on any
of the svg files, it don't even mention the proper license on the
file[2], the only place where there's [kinda] clearly attribution of
license to svg files is on the README.md[3].
Considering only this aspect, I would like advice on what I should
suggest upstream to change in order to explicitly license its svgs (I
would be glad to see examples on other softwares), it looks like
upstream could be using other RDF fields on the svg for that[4].
And now considering that upstream still didn't made this changes, I
could upload the package to Debian, right? I understand that the
license could be more explicit but having it that way on README.md and
on the other files seems like enough for a first upload, what do you
think?
[0]https://salsa.debian.org/debian/adapta-gtk-theme
[1]https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#files-field
[2]https://salsa.debian.org/debian/adapta-gtk-theme/blob/6aa1f96171de5c8a3a45795c5153ade4e995a3fa/wm/asset/assets-xfwm/hide-inactive.svg#L6
[3]https://salsa.debian.org/debian/adapta-gtk-theme/blob/6aa1f96171de5c8a3a45795c5153ade4e995a3fa/README.md#L355
[4]https://creativecommons.org/ns#
Regards,
--
Samuel Henrique <samueloph>
Reply to: