El Dimarts, 27 de maig de 2014, a les 19:37:52, Tobias Frost va escriure: [...] > > > > 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 homepage, but to a newer version of the file.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/h > tml-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) I must repack sources... > > 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? Sorry for not be clear, in a second mail I understood it: they are covered under the same license that the rest. > (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) Yes, ... So, then, as I have the package in a git [1], I understand that just unpack the original sources, delete the conflictive files, repack it with dfsg sufix and add with import-orig, no? thanks in advance, Leopold [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=debian-science/packages/ompl.git -- -- Linux User 152692 PGP: 05F4A7A949A2D9AA Catalonia ------------------------------------- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.