Copyright and licence details on non-text resources

[pljones]

Describe the bug
New icons have been added without copyright and licence details. See:

• d476120#commitcomment-67481015
• 32610d9#commitcomment-67481041
• 130920c#commitcomment-67480848 (resolved)

Expected behavior
Contributors should ensure copyright and licence details for non-text resources (as for any other project content) are made clear.

Additional context
Thanks @mirabilos for raising this. ([edit] and edited to align with comment)

[mirabilos]

Well, for all files ☺ it’s just that nōn-text files often don’t contain legible copyright information, if there is any provenance documentation at all (I also look at commit messages).

(Often. I’ve seen PNGs and SVGs that embed them.)

For most data files (graphics etc.) these aren’t necessary if it’s clear that they are under the overall project licence (e.g. self-drawn). But that needs to be clear (e.g. stated in the commit message) as they might be copied from elsewhere otherwise (I just filed a bug in another project I’m packaging for Debian about missing the licence information for two data files; thankfully they at least added a comment about where the files are from, otherwise I would need to hunt that down because the files looked questionable).

For project logos I assume self-drawn, but others…

[gilgongo]

I think in practice as @mirabilos says we can assume non-text resources are inheriting the licence we have in the repo, and that they had the necessary status for inclusion when they were merged. I suppose if we know of any particular sources for icons and things we can always list in the attribution section in README.txt. Sources/Authors might be in the commit messages?

[mirabilos]

Jonathan dixit:

I think in practice as @mirabilos says we can assume non-text resources are inheriting the licence we have in the repo, and that they had the necessary status for inclusion when they were merged. I suppose if we know of any particular sources for icons and things we can always list in the attribution section in README.txt.

That’s good, but if they have different licences they need to be listed as well (even if compatible); most licences require reproduction of the licence text.

Authors might be in the commit messages?

Authors generally MUST be listed in the text files (either the files themselves or the project-wide licence file), as they are part of the copyright statement (explicit or implicit) and therefore must be kept with the work. It also makes licence audits (whether for distro inclusion or for a later relicencing attempt) easier. Digging through commit messages may be possible for the latter but is tedious, and the former generally needs all applicable statements and licences in the source tarball. bye, //mirabilos -- I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them. If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt

[gilgongo]

From what I can tell, we are compliant in the way we're doing this (that is, listing licenses in https://github.com/jamulussoftware/jamulus/blob/main/README.md#acknowledgements), but that we should not merge anything where we've not been able to at least check that a non-text resource is compliant.

Should we therefore add something to the PR template like "I have supplied the necessary licences for non-text resources"?