Re: Question regarding source files with unclear license

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.