Re: Licensecheck returns UNKOWN, but it's GPL
Luca Niccoli wrote:
> Two of them are actually kernel headers, I think from an old 2.4 version.
> Now, I tried removing them and build depending on linux-headers-2.6,
> it works fine.
> I guess upstream wouldn't be happy to ask his users to install the
> whole kernel headers, just to compile that tiny package; what is the
> correct way to deal with this, repackage orig.tar.gz?
>
Not necessary in this case.
> Or just patch the source not to use the headers included in the
> tarball is enough?
>
That's the way to do it. Preferably using a patch system. And
build-depend on the package with the kernel headers.
> Sticking with the files provided buy upstream makes the compilation a
> far less painful activity (no time and space wasted for unpacking
> kernel headers), but I think it's reckoned a Bad Thing...
>
You could try talking to upstream about removing those files. It's not
really a nice idea. If the kernel API changes, one might be able to
compile with the old provided headers, but the module will crash. Using
the latest kernel headers compilation will be correct if possible, or
fail if some incompatible change was introduced, which is better than
being able to compile something that will not run and possibly crash the
machine.
> As of the third file without copyright statement, it comes from
> project non packaged in debian.
> Is appending a note to debian/copyright about the author of that file ok?
>
If it's GPL or any other license that is OK (and compatible with the
other licenses of other files), yes.
--
Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why
you should.
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
eduardo@kalinowski.com.br
http://move.to/hpkb
Reply to: