W liście z wto, 17-06-2003, godz. 02:09, Artur R. Czechowski pisze: Hi! As apparently nobody replied to this (at least - not to me) I'd try to say how *I* understood the situation and what would I propose. > III. Questions. > 1. Are those licenses not conflicting with each other? I think no. You have some pieces of auto* tools under GPL. Many projects use them. You and they - don't link to this GPL code, just *USE* these tools. People usually don't even mention GPL in ./debian/copyright because of these pieces. Second thing - the PHP-license. FWICS there's no PHP license under /usr/share/common-licenses - so you should put PHP license in ./debian/copyright and say more-less which files are covered by this license. Thrid thing - the main software which is under BSD license - just give a link to /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD in ./debian/copyright and be done with it. I am not aware of any possible conflict between PHP and BSD licenses (but I *might* be wrong - IANAL) so that's OK. > 2. What should I put into debian/copyright? Upstream license only? > All mentioned licenses? If you wanto to be 110% correct do this in ./debina/copyright 1. Mention BSD license as the main license for this software 2. Copy PHP license and say which pieces are covered by it 3. Mention GPL license and that auto* pieces are covered by it By "mention" I mean giving a link to /usr/share/common-licenses/$LIC no. 3. is optional or even unneeded IMO (given current practise) Don't forget to mention authors of 1. and 2. pieces. > 3. What should upstream put as a license for a software in tarball? If it hasn't done already - a copy of /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD. HTH Grzegorz B. Prokopski -- Grzegorz B. Prokopski <gadek@debian.org> Debian http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: To jest =?iso-8859-2?Q?cz=EA=B6=E6?= listu podpisana cyfrowo