On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 14:44 +0200, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote: > Neil Williams ha scritto: > > > You cannot assert that a licence applies (by patching the files to > > declare a licence attribution) if you do not have confirmation from the > > copyright holders of those files. i.e. you cannot claim that these files > > are under any particular licence if upstream have not made that clear. > [...] > >> Is it sufficient a copyright clarification on debian/copyright ? > > > > The clarification you need is a statement from all the copyright holders > > (or one who is authorised to speak on the behalf of everyone else) that > > a particular licence applies to the specific files in question. > > > > The files in question are in source upstream, but they are taken from > netlib software packages (minipack, Do you mean these are embedded source? Source code that already exists as a separate package in Debian should not be duplicated in NEW packages. Use the existing library support and remove the unwanted source files from your package source tarball. > http://www.netlib.org/minpack/disclaimer) > > Can I claim that these files are under Minipack license, and write a > statement in debian/copyright? No. If there are differences, those differences still cause licence issues. If there are no differences, there is no point having the files in the source in the first place. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part