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 so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
