Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 685920 - net-misc/seafile: Possible copyright infringement / wrong license
Summary: net-misc/seafile: Possible copyright infringement / wrong license
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Current packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: Normal normal (vote)
Assignee: Quentin Retornaz
Depends on:
Reported: 2019-05-14 07:42 UTC by Kristian Fiskerstrand (RETIRED)
Modified: 2021-10-14 12:02 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Kristian Fiskerstrand (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2019-05-14 07:42:15 UTC
As the maintainer of net-misc/seafile I would like to point you to the discussion on the debian-legal mailing list relating to this package:

Please review the information provided and comment on its applicability to Gentoo.
Comment 1 Moritz Schlarb 2019-05-16 07:57:35 UTC
I'd like to refer to my answer in

> Dear all,
> as maintainer of the Seafile client packages (libsearpc, seafile and
> seafile-client), I would like to thank Jan-Henrik for bringing this to
> our attention.
> There have already been such findings in the past, regarding some code
> taken from git, and the discussion regarding libzdb in the past, as you
> mentioned. I remember discussing the problems regarding linking to
> OpenSSL, too.
> However, all of the database related code is *only* contained in the
> Seafile server implementation (,
> RFP at #865830) and not in the Seafile client implementation
> ( that I have packaged for Debian.

and Gentoo. ;-)

> I disagree that this should serve as a reason for *not* including the
> client packages in the next Debian release.

and Gentoo. ;-)

> What do others think about that?
> I will however forward these findings to the developers at Seafile Ltd
> and ask them for a proper resolution.
Comment 2 Jonas Stein gentoo-dev 2019-07-01 01:57:23 UTC
I reopen after reading the ticket

Upstream was not very responsible about the license violation. 
The "solutions" on the bug tracker are alarming.
We should either look into the files in a short audit, or tree clean the package.

There is a untraceable mix of licenses, forks and old, bundled libs in the upstream tree. Software like this can be very dangerous, if it is unmaintained in our tree. A look on the open bugs and the way license violations are handled motivates me rather to treeclean.
Comment 3 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2020-01-25 11:45:03 UTC
So, how are we going to proceed here? Reading the last comment of the linked Debian bug makes me cringe:

| I am very uncomfortable with having code in Debian whose upstream
| authors appear to have plagiarised some other people's software, and
| then obfuscated it, in order to evade copyright licensing.  Who knows
| what other misleading practices they have engaged in, or may do in the
| future ?
| As a project, we do not have the resources to fully audit all the code
| we ingest from upstreams and redistribute to our users.  We must rely
| on trust.  That depends on the upstream being trustworthy.

To me it looks like the situation is everything else than resolved.