Upstream projects that do not comply with their license (MIT/EPL/...)
Eugenio Cano-Manuel Mendoza
eugeniocanom at gmail.com
Wed Jul 31 01:36:06 UTC 2013
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Wolodja Wentland <babilen at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:33 +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > Wolodja Wentland <debian at babilen5.org> writes:
> > > OTOH the *intention* of upstream is pretty clear and I am sure they
> won't take
> > > us to court over this, but I wouldn't want to rely on that.
> > If they clarify their intent in email or on the github issue, that's
> > good enough, we can slap on the license ourselves. In this case, this
> > has to be clarified in d/copyright with appropriate references & quotes.
> Right, that would surely be enough and I've seen examples of this in the
> archive before. Lets hope that the upstream authors reply in due course to
> ensure that this issue doesn't delay us for too long
Could you please point me to a few of those packages? I'm wondering how
debian/copyright should look when quoting and referencing those intentions.
By the way, is it _mandatory_ for all source files to mention its license
in the header? For example tools.cli does include the license in the parent
directory but doesn't mention anything on the source files (same for
stencil). Should I submit a bug? Does this also apply to tests? (Even if we
don't package them but I'm guessing it does)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pkg-clojure-maintainers