On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 09:38 +0200, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote: > A Dimarts, 27 de maig de 2014, Tobias Frost va escriure: > > On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 08:08 +0200, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm making a package and I have two files (scripts) that have no license. > I > > > have asked to upstream and his answer was that that files are unlicensed. > > > > > > As I have a bug because partially mentions that files, what should I write > in > > > the copyright file? > > > > Well, if they are really "unclicenesed" they are undistributeable, so > > you cannot have them in the package at all. Not even in non-free. > > This is as copyright law defaults to "all rights reserved" in most > > countries, and "all" includes distribution as well etc. > > > > Maybe upstream just meant "same license as the remaining files"? > > no ... > > > Or they just not aware that an unlicensed file causes trouble? > > probably. > > I have bug [1] and therefore I asked to upstream about this files. Hi kindly > reported me the licenses, but I have some files (for instance javascripts > gen_validatorv31.js) that I have not found any information about the license. Actually you can find it by just following the URL given in the gen_validatorv31.js file itself. (Granted, this link points to the right homepage, but to a newer version of the file. However with the help of archive.org you can find the version "31" and actually the license terms did not change since then: https://web.archive.org/web/20081230025946/http://www.javascript-coder.com/html-form/javascript-form-validation.phtml https://web.archive.org/web/20081230025946/http://www.javascript-coder.com/html-form/javascript_form.zip Unfortunatly neigther the license in the file nor the EULA* file in the zip file grants you explictily the rights for distribution. So I fear you cannot. (Additionally -- but this does not really matter without the right for distribution -- the file is not dfsg-free, as e.g commercial use is prohibited) > Also, in the test directory, not in any deb file, I have two shell script with > no license in the header, and I have just a sentence in a private mail from > upstream. What does that sentence tell? Was this the "not licensesd" answer you referred to earlier? (Well IMHO as the main directory has a LICENSE file telling of a 3-clause-BSD license for the whole thing, I would expect that this shell scripts are covered by this licenses without explicitly having a header in it. Of course having a license header is always clearer/preferred, but at least its a base IMHO you can safely assume that licensing is ok) > So, I understand that as we redistribute the sources, we have the same > restrictions, no? Generally, you have to follow the license. Especially you cannot distribute files where you don't have the rights for. > May I think to repackage the sources to follow dfsg rules? As far as I see thats the only possibility. (Other option would be that the license of that file to be changed -- but that's probably out of scope) > Regards, > > Leopold > > > [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=741603 > > > -- > -- > Linux User 152692 > Catalonia -- Tobi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part