Copy:
[email protected] (Xiyue Deng)
On Thursday, November 14, 2024 2:33:29 PM MST Xiyue Deng wrote:
Hi,
I was working on updating the dap-mode package[1] (team repo[2]) and
noticed that the previous maintainer removed some of the source files
stating that they have unclear license[3]. If you look at those files,
for the text files they don't really have a copyright header, though I
would expect that those files should be under the common license by
default (which is GPL-3[4]).
Agreed.
There are also some binary icon files that
are used as control. It includes vscode icons[5] which seems to derive
from this upstream repo[6] with CC BY 4.0, and eclipse icons[7] which
seems to derive from this upstream repo[8] with EPL-1.0, and both
licenses are DFSG-compliant.
That should be fairly easy to document in debian/copyright.
Admittedly the dap-mode upstream could be
a bit clearer about the license on those icons by providing a dedicated license file under those directories, and I can file a PR upstream to
request that if needed.
Agreed. My personal experience is that upstreams are usually fairly willing
to provide better copyright documentation when these types of things are pointed out to them.
OTOH, AIUI, the removal of those files was not required for the package
to be considered DFSG safe as all licenses seem to be DFSG-compliant
(also the previous maintainer didn't mark the package version with any "+dfsg" suffix after removing those files). On the other hand, removing files results in difference between upstream source, and this could
potential cause packaging issues when upgrading to newer versions
(e.g. newly added files may depend on files that were removed).
I wonder whether those removed files should be considered with unclear license, and if not, whether I can add those files back. Hence I would
like to consult the debian-legal@ folks to make sure things are indeed DFSG-compliant.
Based on the research you have done, I can see no reason to assume that these files are not DFSG-free (it sounds like the previous maintainer made an assumption instead of having any definitive information). Unless someone provides some evidence to the contrary, I think you are fine to include them in the package along with correct documentation in debian/copyright for the
icons.
--
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJKVN2yNUZnlcqOI+wufLJ66wtgMFAmc2biAACgkQwufLJ66w tgPGnBAAlVhwEVT28/QlE9OGKge0f6AgM2ztCl01s8XSP4uSJ6kY9sGwGRpUo5Q/ YSm6h2dz6rPD0KU9zI3p0Z+s3t/jHwI073mUtptf/ePDtlyQtVXFKKkthtas4PQe C+8qV6XIDZP6NayvaUu4Ez4OgLBak8HAm4ufvvIqR/PKB+pSx6QBHLfPWJza09gK QK0TW0zou7KEmtGTGdYONT+QYjeXhL+r7vP54Hgzhvi/TW71IZqqByQ6H/EFX0ZL sDl9+klw2p/XL+Xswj6UoHOQIWX9OvTxpXKCSOL0vfXnMxCSS/QuoU3EqQ8II1Ap 8kSgsTZ6FrHDgfNJF7xPyFznY9+jHBxeVrBaFxgl6PN/DcZOYNN0Xw+Y24pI0b0a gsyGwGEARAddEeMp+HdXNIc9GnNY1AY4u7OFrlmv/CZvU73gEt0OR22xiVPV3WM/ PjeApautepuIx5zjKbhoWf5nXg2QFNH/bzmjzmzU0Toxuk98m1eyOf0omVfKlQ04 Iwj1bSGA9w2uuXpeNHGjSRKdxFF/sWlvYPB02KCFNqUyJqhB+wR8BOpk0BIIb4dO fvaypdXQWt6QLlj0YelyYW7loXx+4XzTPx6aeGKEBT3FJLuZSONYlC+yvL+ETKTQ b0dRN5OC515HFmsTARAeuppSPlvneT3zPKuLaB4UadZtY/oVcL8=
=Tob2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)