[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian packaging license (was: Re: RFC: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines).

Le lundi 10 août 2009 09:58:04, Jonathan Yu a écrit :
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Charles Plessy<plessy@debian.org> wrote:
> > Le Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:33:58AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
> >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Charles Plessy<plessy@debian.org> wrote:
> >> > The dh_make template for debian/copyright induces many developers to
> >> > put their packaging work under the GPL, and I have already seen
> >> > packages whose license is otherwise BSD-ish with such patches. If the
> >> > maintainer suddenly goes MIA and the patch is non-trivial, then in
> >> > theory if we want to respect what is written, we are stuck with a
> >> > GPL'ed patch. Therefore, we have an optional License field to make
> >> > things crystal clear if necessary.
> >>
> >> Sounds like dh_make needs a bug report about the default packagaging
> >> license, could you file one?
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > we just had a case in the Debian Med packaging team where the upstream
> > author of software licensed under terms similar to the BSD license got
> > upset to see the Debian packaging licenced under the GPL, and posted a
> > reminder that GPLed contributions to his software will not be accepted.
> Yes, this is precisely why the pkg-perl team usually goes with "same
> terms as Perl itself" (Artistic | GPL) and whatever the upstream
> licensing terms are (usually Artistic | GPL but sometimes BSD).
> So for example if upstream is BSD-licensed, then I'd personally put
> something like:
> Artistic | GPL | BSD
> for the debian/* files
> My reasoning is that the upstream can get stuff like patches back into
> their software (the BSD) provision but also allows anyone that can use
> Perl to use the patch (Artistic | GPL). Further, if upstream decides
> later to change to the "same as Perl" license (it is probably the most
> popular license on CPAN), it is okay for them to do so (with our
> patches).
> In the case of Debian-Med (being an outsider and not knowing what the
> team works with), I'd say explicitly licensing your debian/* files
> under the same license as upstream would be appropriate, or perhaps a
> combination of upstream | GPL licensing. This is clearly a discussion
> we all need to have within teams/package groups/etc -- namely, what do
> we want our debian/* files to be licensed under.

And also what exactly is covered by the license claim. For instance, in the 
case of patches contained in debian/, I have some doubts about the license 
that applies. 

Usually, when one wants to propose a patch to a project, it has to do it under 
the original licence. That's particularly the case if the patch consists, for 
instance, of the diff of a commit from the current developpement code of the 
same upstream project...

Hence, are patches in debian/ covered by the license claimed for the project 
upstream, or for the debian packaging ?


Reply to: