Bug#658065: RFS: atlas-cpp/0.6.2-1 [ITA] -- WorldForge wire protocol library
"Stephen M. Webb" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 02/12/2012 05:49 AM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> "Stephen M. Webb"<email@example.com> 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:
Copyright: 2000, Stefanus Du Toit
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.