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

Re: Let’s turn DEP5 into something useful



On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 15:28 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:

> > A build tool that pollutes the licence of what its used to build would
> > be rather problematic 
> >
> Indeed. But do you always need an exception? I had the impression that
> the output of a GPL'd tool could be licensed at will, unless the output
> contained parts from the tool itself, as is the case with autoconf, for
> example, which has an exception for this reason:

IANAL, but as I understand it you are correct. But how to tell that a
given tool *doesn't embed any part of itself in the output? [Thats
rhetorical, lets not start a new subthread :)]. So sometimes an
exception will be needed, and other times it won't be needed and no
impact will be made on the copyright status of the binaries.

>  [...] You need not follow the terms of the GNU General Public License
>        when using or distributing such scripts, even though portions of
>        the text of Autoconf appear in them. [...]
> 
> > - do you have any actual examples?
> >
> A real-life example from libunistring (which I've filed an ITP for [1]):
> The source files that will constitute the resulting library package are
> all LGPL-3+'d, but the source tarball also contains a test suite, which
> is GPL-3+ (without any exception). Now is the license of the test suite
> relevant to the resulting library package, effectivly rendering it
> GPL-3+? I don't think so, but looking at a debian/copyright file using
> the current DEP-5 format, one cannot really tell that the libunistring
> package is actually under the LGPL-3+, hence my suggestion to add
> information about which license applies to which binary package.

My 2c are that the copyright file should be documenting the copyright
status of the binary packages; and thus it should not list anything
about GPL-3+ in your case, *unless* you were to start shipping the built
tests too. It might be useful to say that 'package foo' is GPL3+ and
'package bar' is LPGL3+. I think this is being discussed elsewhere in
the thread already in fact.

-Rob

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: