Re: copyright precision
Jonas Smedegaard writes ("Re: copyright precision"):
> Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-08-16 15:32:19)
> > In the end up looked at the package's upstream web pages, which
> > contained a clear answer to the question.
> How was the approach¹ not successful? Didn't you succeed in realizing
> that the package you looked at had complex licensing?
No. It was far from obvious that the effective licence was actually
quite simple and indeed compatible with AGPLv3+ as I required.
> Ghostscript ships with a LICENSE file of 70 lines, stating that main
> parts are AGPL-3+, most fonts are AGPL-3+ with an exception, and various
> other details.
> Ghostscript packaged for Debian has a debian/copyright file with ~400
> lines enumerating which source files are covered by which license (and
> then another ~800 lines covering the actual licenses verbatim).
If I want to know which source files are covered by what licence, I am
working with the source code already and can just look in the relevant
Normally what a potential user needs to know is the effective licence
of the whole thing.
In the case of something like Ghostscript, which copies bits of itself
(in this case, fonts) into its output, you also need to know what
effect this might have on the license of those outputs.
> Fedora apparently covers the Ghostscript license in a single line:
> "AGPLv3+ and Redistributable, no modification permitted".
I assume "AGPL-3+ with an exception" is AGPLv3+ with what is usually
termed an `additional permission'.
I also assume that Debian's Ghostscript does not contain anything
which is "Redistributable, no modification permitted".
It seems to me that your summary in this email is likely to be more
useful than what is in debian/copyright.
Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.