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

Re: debian/* license of non-free packages

On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 14:18 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Markus Koschany (2013-01-10 11:11:30)
> > Hi Nick,
> > On a side note, unace-nonfree also contains patches and the whole 
> > debian directory is made available under the GPL-2+ license.
> > 
> > Maybe a permissive license is better suited then a copyleft license 
> > for such cases.
> I agree that patches need be compatible with the code the patches are 
> applied onto, which for some non-free works cannot be a copyleft one.  
> But you may not be copyright holder of said patches so cannot ahead 
> choose a liberal license either.

This is a puzzling question for me: If you are the copyright holder of
patches (they can be substantial) which license should apply? I have not
seen this before, maybe I missed it. This question applies to free as
well as non-free packages.

1) As a Debian patch, not forwarded upstream
2) The Debian Maintainer forwards the patch upstream
3) The patch submitter forwards the patch upstream

The third case might be clear, what about the other two?

> Files: debian/patches/*
> Copyright: [our team or whoever actually holds copyright]
> License: [permissive or whatever others actually issued]

Reply to: