Re: Question regarding source files with unclear license

Xiyue Deng <[email protected]> Thu, 14 Nov 2024 15:11:13 -0800
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Hi Soren,

Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> 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
> [email protected]

-- 
Regards,
Xiyue Deng
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 857 B)