On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 13:55:33 +0100 Julien Jehannet wrote: > Hello debian-legal, Hi! > > > I was wondering about the best practises for an upstream project > concerning their LICENSE/COPYING files (especially with widespread > licenses). > > The point is about the appendix section (after the end of terms and > conditions) which explains how common license terms must be applied > and how the copyright holder have to be updated. > > 1. Could you confirm that these files must *always* be kept untouched > by upstream authors (as I suppose now after some discussions) ? I am not sure that they *must always* be included as verbatim copies of the "official" version, but a number of licenses definitely mandate this behavior (see for instance the GNU GPL). Anyway, even in cases where the license authors do *not* explicitly require it, I think that one should try to use the unaltered "official" version of the license, whenever possible/appropriate. > > 2. Is the appendix section must/should/may be present ? > > Example: > - the `Gnomovision` example in GPL-2 file As already explained by others, the appendix is an integral part of the GNU GPL. > > 3. Is there any step to review for a Debian maintainer with specific > content like: I am afraid I don't fully understand this question. Are you asking what should the maintainer of a Debian package do when facing the situations described below? I'll assume that this is meaning of your question. > > Examples: > - blank copyright line¹ often found in LICENSES files I think that the maintainer of a Debian package should seek clarification from the upstream authors, whenever he/she finds an incomplete copyright notice in the package. > - GPL-2 'any-later-version' option² in source code notices I think that the maintainer of a Debian package should not do anything special, when he/she finds an 'any-later-version' option in the package. Licensing under GPLv2-or-later is a legitimate upstream choice. Licensing under GPLv2-only is another equally legitimate upstream choice. Both possible choices should be respected as such: it's up to the upstream authors to decide, and neither choice is a DFSG-freeness issue, in itself. > > Perhaps debian-legal@ has remarks/recommendation to share. It might help > some newcomers like me. I hope my replies may help a little bit... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgprbdbMVP7py.pgp
Description: PGP signature