Re: RFS: xxxterm
Luis Henriques wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:26:24AM +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > - Regarding the png logos, I don't know where you got the license
> > information from, but you didn't write which version of the cc-by-sa
> > applies. Also, I'm not entirely sure this image is actually free;
> > the exact same fight club soap can be seen here [1]. Of course, it
> > may be that it's that website that is in violation of the cc-by-sa
> > by not mentioning the license, but it would be nice to know where
> > the image comes from originally.
> >
> > [1] http://uncrate.com/stuff/fight-club-soap/
>
> I got the license information for the png files from the upstream authors.
> I asked them privately (there is no mailing list, only a web forum) and
> their reply was "creative commons".
Well if they really just said "creative commons," then you cannot even
assume they meant cc-by-sa (could be cc-by, or cc-by-nc-nd, etc.) So you
should ask them to clarify what type of creative commons license applies
to those files, and which version of it (only 3.0 is DFSG-free).
Ideally, they would just give you the URL they got the image from, but
if they can tell you for sure which license applies, then I guess it's
fine.
> But I do understand your concern about this. I can try to ping again the
> authors to get more details about this. However, if I'm not able to sort
> this out, would you recommend to remove these files from the package? I
> guess they could be easily replaced with other generic webbrowser logos
> already available in Debian...
Yes, if the cannot be sorted out, you'd have to replace these images
with something free.
> > - Some files are not listed at all, like xxxterm.conf or everything
> > under freebsd/.
>
> With respect to the xxxterm.conf (and other example configurations), there
> is no explicit reference to a license. Again, the authors referred to the
> website (http://opensource.conformal.com/wiki/XXXTerm#License), where I
> can assume it is ISC. Thus, I can add these files to the debian/copyright
> with this license.
That sounds reasonable. You may want to mention it to upstream anyway,
in case they want to clarify anything or maybe narrow down the list of
copyright holders for that particular file.
> With respect to the freebsd/ directory files, I admit I add some doubts
> about including them or not in debian/copyright. I took a look at other
> similar packages (i.e., with files specific to other OSes that are not
> used for building Debian packages) and these files were not referred.
> Maybe I should have asked someone instead... :-)
> So, in order to be consistent, I could included them on the copyright
> file and open a bug report against the package(s) that have the same
> issue. What do you think?
Every file distributed in the original tarball must have a license,
even if they're not necessary to produce the final binary package,
otherwise we don't even know if we're allowed to redistribute them.
So yes, their copyright status should be sorted out, and of course the
same goes for any Debian package; but be aware that most DEP-5 copyright
files include a 'Files: *' paragraph that applies to all the files that
are not later referenced by another paragraph.
Cheers,
--
Benoît Knecht
Reply to: