Re: RFS: aescrypt
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Benoît Knecht <benoit.knecht@fsfe.org> [110804 23:03]:
> > Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > > * Benoît Knecht <benoit.knecht@fsfe.org> [110804 20:54]:
> > > > I've seen that, but they need to make that perfectly clear in the
> > > > license header of each file in the tarball. An email sent to you and
> > > > reproduced in the debian/copyright file is not enough.
> > >
> > > There is nothing special about the source files. There is a need to
> > > have a license, there is no need that this license statement must be
> > > in the files itself or even in the tarball.
> >
> > I don't get what you mean by "there is no need to have a license".
>
> Where does this "no" come from?
>From some crazy neuron misfiring in my brain, I guess. Sorry about
that :\
> > A software distributed without a license is always presumed to be
> > non-free. I do agree that the license doesn't have to be in the file
> > itself, but then there should at least be a license file in the tarball
> > stating what the license of all the included files is; and if there is a
> > license statement in the file (as it is the case now), it should state
> > all the rights granted to the user. Right now, the header says you're
> > free to distribute these files, and somewhere else one of the copyright
> > holder (in a private email, as far as I can tell) says you can do pretty
> > much whatever you want with those files. I don't think that's an
> > acceptable license grant; it's confusing at best.
>
> It's indeed confusing and not ideal. But if all the permissions were
> properly given then this would be no show-stopper. The problem in this
> example (apart from debian/copyright being incomplete and
> apperently getting some number wrong) is that the mail given is not so
> clear to give this additional permissions and that the author of that
> mail might not be able to give permissions for all the code (due to
> there being multiple authors, as you pointed out).
>
> > There are three contributors (according to debian/copyrigh, not all of
> > them are copyright holders, it's not clear why) listed in aescrypt.c for
> > example, so we'd need a statement from all the copyright holders,
> > preferably somewhere publically accessible. I still think it's way
> > easier to get upstream to fix the license headers.
>
> It's easier for everyone involved except the one who has to explain
> upstream what exactly we want in those files, convince them to add
> that and then repeat those two steps till it is done...
That's true. Ali, if you don't want to do this, or if you need some
help, let me know.
Cheers,
--
Benoît Knecht
Reply to: