Quoting Ian Jackson (2015-11-25 14:26:06) > Jonas Smedegaard writes ("how to respect licensing for derived installer images?"): >> I suspect the effective license of the combined work of the official >> Debian install images is quite likely some version of GPL, which >> means I will need to provide (or promise to provide) sources >> involved. >> >> Since the "preferred form of editing" for my³ changes is the official >> binary images, do a link to those satisfy my obligations? > > I think the preferred form for modification is _all of_: > - the official binary images > - your software for modifying them > - the source code for all the software in the image > >> Or, if I need to provide source code for all pieces of the image, >> even though arguably I do not change any of it (only recodes their >> cpio and vfat encoding), how do I then enumerate what is involved? > > I assume that the installer image builder leaves a log somewhere of > the software that's included. > > I would write a notice like this: > > I hereby offer to provide the source code for the relevant Debian > binary packages, included in the installer, on request. However, > you will probably find it easier to acquire these packages from the > official Debian resources, ftp.debian.org and/or > snapshot.debian.org. > >> Also, who decides what is the effective license of that work? Should >> I have asked -legal@d.o? Or leader@d.o? Or is -boot@d.o or whichtever >> other team producing what ended up on our website the right ones to >> ask? > > Conventional wisdom (with which I do not agree) is that something like > an installer image is an aggregation, so does not need to have a > single licence. Rather, there are separate licences for all the > pieces. Thanks a lot! Took some time for it to sink in. Now it has, and makes good sense :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature