Re: no licenses are granted + BSD-3-clause
Jérémy Lal <[email protected]> Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:42:21 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAJxTCxxkk-zhufF2ZuFi0EQDNaUo87XnQsVMXp=JHuPm8rukUQ@mail.gmail.com> |
Le mar. 9 déc. 2025 à 23:58, Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> a écrit : > On Tuesday, December 9, 2025 3:40:48 PM Mountain Standard Time Jérémy Lal > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I came across what follows. > > It's not clear to me how the concatenation of that text + BSD-3-clause > > gives a whole that isn't DFSG. > > > > The Source Map Tests suite ("Software") is protected by copyright and is > > being made available under the "BSD License", included below. This > > Software may be subject to third party rights (rights from parties other > > than Ecma International), including patent rights, and no licenses under > > such third party rights are granted under this license even if the third > > party concerned is a member of Ecma International. SEE THE ECMA CODE OF > > CONDUCT IN PATENT MATTERS AVAILABLE AT > > https://www.ecma-international.org/ipr FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE > > LICENSING OF PATENT CLAIMS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT ECMA > > INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS*. > > > > Copyright (c) 2024, Ecma International > > All rights reserved. > > > > (here follows a standard BSD-3-clause license follows). > > Without any background for context, the above information applies to every > package in Debian, even though it isn’t explicitly stated. Basically they > are > saying: We are releasing this software under the BSD. Other people may > have > patents that they claim cover this software. We can’t do anything about > that. > > Any third party can claim they have a patent over any software in Debian. > It > usually doesn’t become an issue unless some judicial officer accepts their > claim and rules that the open-source software must be taken offline. > > > Without better advice, I will "dfsg-exclude" the files. > > I don’t see any reason we would need to exclude these files unless there > is > some information indicating that we can’t distribute them, like a court > case > establishing that someone does indeed have patent control over these files. > Thanks for the two answers. The concerned files are straightforward, nothing of concern. Keeping them, then.