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

Re: RFS (take 2): libapache2-mod-authz-unixgroup

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Hai Zaar <haizaar@haizaar.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 11:05:08 +0300
>> Hai Zaar <haizaar@haizaar.com> wrote:
>>> >> 1. where is the copyright come from? i did not find it in the source
>>> >> or the homepage.
>>> > You are right. I've just blindly copied copyright file from
>>> > mod_authnz_external, assuming it would be the same, since both
>>> > packages are alike and come from the same author. I'll write to the
>>> > author and ask to put copyright notice into the package.
>>> The author is not answering. Should we wait some more? What is usually
>>> done in cases when there is no copyright of any kind?
>> Without copyright information, the package defaults to non-distributable
>> because copyright assumes "All Rights Reserved" unless proven
>> otherwise. It's not even suitable for non-free in that condition as the
>> licence claim is invalid and you cannot even assume that you have the
>> right to distribute the completely unchanged source code, whether in
>> source or binary form. Uploading that package to mentors without a
>> valid copyright could be deemed copyright infringement but the only
>> person who can really complain is the author who isn't
>> responding . . . .
>> If the package source does not contain a claim of copyright, you cannot
>> assert any such claim later and you have no way of enforcing the
>> licence. The package cannot be sponsored in that condition.
>> Is there no copyright information in the package at all? (I haven't
>> looked.)
> The package has only one source file, together with README and INSTALL
> file. None of them mention copyright of any kind.
> Too bad :(
> I guess the only option left is to keep pinging the author, isn't it?
The author has responded and added copyright, but not released another
version for it, so its currently only in SVN trunk:
Can I just add this as a patch to a current release?


Reply to: