Hi Soren, Soren Stoutner <so...@debian.org> writes:
> 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. > Thanks for confirming! >> 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. > Sounds good. Will add clarifying licenses accordingly. >> 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. > Ack. Filed https://github.com/emacs-lsp/dap-mode/issues/814. >> 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. > Thanks again for confirming! I'll proceed as advised. > -- > Soren Stoutner > so...@debian.org -- Regards, Xiyue Deng
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
