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

Re: incompatible licenses in the debian directory

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 03:24:58PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Hm unsure. It really depends on how far you acknowledge the
> virality of the GPL – Debian, AFAIK, tends to go more with
> the FSF’s extreme interpretation…

I don't think my view is out of line with the FSF's.

This applies to source code for the covered work. The covered work *is*
the build-script in this case. The upstream code is EPL, which has no
clause that requires the build-scripts to be under a compatable license.

In addition, I don't think that using the build-scripts creates a
derivative work, so I don't think the resulting work would be GPL'd just
because of the build scripts.

As such, I don't see a problem, unless someone points out something I've
overlooked here.

> But if the new maintainer is willing to completely remove the
> old stuff that’s probably the best outcome, considering the
> old maintainer is unwilling to cooperate.

Perhaps, but I don't think it's a problem, so long as the debian/patches
are licensed EPL or more permissive. There are oodles of packages that
have GPL-3+'d debian/* with a non-GPL upstream license.

> (Personally I think debian/ should be permissive, especially
> if there’s not too much “magic” in it… and others even think
> there should be no magic in it…)

I don't disagree, but I don't think this is inherently an issue.

> bye,
> //mirabilos


 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>
: :'  : Proud Debian Developer
`. `'`  4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
 `-     http://people.debian.org/~paultag

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: