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

Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+

Eriberto Mota writes ("Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+"):
> Now, I would like to understand why the packaging isn't a derivative
> work (when haven't a patch). So, I am thinking that is because Debian
> distributes, separately, the upstream code (orig.tar.gz) and
> debian.tar.xz. Is this? But, the .deb is a product of the junction of
> these files. So, I am confused. Can you clarify me this issue?

`Derivative work' is a concept defined in copyright law so it varies
by jurisdiction.  But basically, X is a derivative work of Y iff the
production of X involved taking (or translating or adapting) pieces of

Typically, the packaging files in debian/ do not contain anything tha
came from the upstream source.  So in themselves they are not a
derivative work.

But the source package as a whole, and the binary packages, _do_ of
course contain the results of adapting/compiling/etc. _both_ parts of
the upstream source _and_ parts of the debian/ packaging.  So the
source package, and the binary packages, are derivative works of both
the upstream source and the Debian packaging.

(With free software licences) that means that the licences of the
upstream and Debian parts must be compatible, and the result is that
the licence of the source package as a whole, and of the binary
packages, is the `strictest' of the licences of the components.



Reply to: