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