Re: Debian packaging license (was: Re: RFC: DEP-3: Patch Tagging Guidelines).
Le Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:58:04AM -0400, Jonathan Yu a écrit :
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Charles Plessy<plessy@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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).
Hi Jonathan,
I pushed the logic further and taking advantage of the draft machine-readable
format for debian/copyright, which in the absence of other mention assumes that
the copyright statement applies to all files (implicit ‘Files: *’ field), I
removed mentions about debianization and copyright for my packaging work. This
effectively releases my work under ‘same as upstream’ conditions.
It still leaves uncertainties in case of upstream relicensing, which is why I
am also tempted by politically correct versions of the WTFPL, like the BOLA
license: http://blitiri.com.ar/p/bola/
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: