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

Bug#658065: RFS: atlas-cpp/0.6.2-1 [ITA] -- WorldForge wire protocol library


"Stephen M. Webb" <stephen.webb@bregmasoft.ca> writes:
> On 02/12/2012 05:49 AM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> "Stephen M. Webb"<stephen.webb@bregmasoft.ca>  writes:
>>>>   * There are files licensed under the GFDL in tutorial/example.
>> [...]
>>> I have reworded debian/changelog for clarification and added a clause to
>>> debian/copyright for the example files.  A new source package has been
>>> uploaded to mentors.debian.net.
>> Please don't assume specific versions of licenses if upstream does not
>> say so (debian/copyright says GFDL-1.3+ while the example files in the
>> tarball say just GFDL unless I missed something). Also you mentioned the
>> LGPL-2.1 instead of the GFDL later.
> Upstream has been unable to clarify the licensing of the particular
> source in question (the original author is out of contact) and has
> suggested it be removed from the source tarball, since it is neither
> built nor packaged.  Is this a preferred alternative?

I think it is fine to just document that it is released under a GFDL
license (any version) and add a note that we assume there are no
invariant sections, no front cover and no back cover texts.  The GFDL
even states so: "If the Document does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft)
by the Free Software Foundation." and "If the Document does not identify
any Invariant Sections then there are none." (and I assume the same
holds for cover texts).

So I would use something like:

Files: tutorial/example/*
Copyright: 2000, Stefanus Du Toit
License: GFDL-NIV-1.0+
 This file is covered by the GNU Free Documentation License.
 On Debian systems the full text of the GNU Free Documentation License
 can be found in `/usr/share/common-licenses/GFDL'.
 No invariant sections, no front cover and no back cover texts are given.

Maybe refer to a specific version instead, but as we don't have versions
1.0 or 1.1 in common-licenses, you would have to refer to 1.2 or 1.3.


Reply to: