[Pkg-phototools-devel] On poking upstreams about copyright/license matters

[Bernd Zeimetz]

Hi,

> I'd like to get your views on the following topic. Let's suppose that a
> package got previously ACCEPTED into the archive, but with a rather
> monolithic “package is licensed under $foo's term” copyright file.
> 
> But then, while writing a complete copyright file, with all copyright
> holders and license texts, it appears that some files lack a proper
> license statement (like say “license: gpl”), or proper copyright
> notices.

I'd do the following things:
- remove all non-free material, upload a .dfsg. version, if that's not
possible, move the package to non-free.
- talk to upstream about it, I've seen upstreams which just didn't know
about the problems in there software, or they just ignored the problem.
Telling them which problems you're facing, what you just did with their
source (like removing non-free material and showing it by adding a dfsg
to their version number, or moving their code to non-free often helps,
but of course you may not word it like 'your code sucks, it's not free,
fix it now'.

> In those cases, it looks to me that the intent of being free is quite
> clear, and that there's no strong problem, like a stupid patent, or a
> wanted-to-be-proprietary license. And since the package is already in
> the archive, it looks like no regression to me to upload the updated
> packages, while upstream is being notified of the possible problems, so
> that those problematic parts get clarified.

Seriously one should file a RC bug now to make sure the package does not
go into Lenny in current state. Which does not mean removal from Debian
completely, but making sure we don't release with non-free material.

Cheers,

Bernd
-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz                           Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79