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. 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. So, I understand that as we redistribute the sources, we have the same restrictions, no? May I think to repackage the sources to follow dfsg rules? Regards, Leopold [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=741603 -- -- Linux User 152692 Catalonia
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.