[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: incompatible licenses in the debian directory

Le Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:18:58AM -0400, Miles Lubin a écrit :
> Here's the issue:
> - Since the last upload, upstream has switched from the CPL (Common
> Public License) to the EPL (Eclipse Public License).
> - The debian directory had no explicit license mentioned in the
> copyright file. It was pointed out by Paul Tagliamonte that the
> previous maintainer(s) must agree to the change in license.
> - Soeren Sonnenburg, the previous maintainer, has insisted that his
> work be licensed under GPLv3 exclusively.
> - EPL and GPLv3 are incompatible
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License), but the extent
> to which they are incompatible is not clear to me.

Hi Miles, Soeren and everybody,

if Soeren did not indicate a license for his work in the Debian directory (to
the extent that it is copyrightable), I think that the general assumption that
it is under the same license as the Upstream work, in particular for the
patches (which is why there is no License field in DEP 3, the Patch Tagging
Guidelines).  The CPL is also listed as incompatible with the GPL on FSF's
website, so the patches definitely were not GPL-licensed.


For the manpage: it does not contain a copyright or a license statement, and
the Debian copyright file mentions

    If not stated otherwise
    Copyright: (C) 2000-2003, 2005-2008 International Business Machines Corporation and others.
    License: Common Public License Version 1.0

In any case, it would be good to submit the manpage Upstream, and the most
cooperative way would be to use the same license as Upstream.  Integrating the
manpage upstream reduces the packager's load, and shares the work beyond

Soeren, are you sure you would like this manpage to be licensed under terms that
may be not welcome Upstream ?

Have a nice day,

Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: