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

Re: License of binary packages

On 14/11/14 19:19, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org> writes:
>> I am not aware of any update on the matter: I suppose the determination
>> of the effective licenses of binary packages is still something to be
>> done manually.
>> I hope this answers Ole's question, although maybe in a disappointing
>> way...
> I am not sure if this is legally so simple: As far as I understand
> licensing, it is the way to allow others to use the product (sorry for
> unprofessional wording here; I am not at all a specialist in that).
> That means, that as long as we don't allow someone to use a binary
> package, he is neither allowed to copy it, nor to use it in any way. We
> (Debian) must grant him some rights.
> Currently, I don't see that we do that anywhere. debian/copyright refers
> only to sources, not to binaries.
> Also, the license of the binary is not (always) an unambigious result of
> the source packages: a BSD only licensed source file may also end up in
> a GPL licensed binary. or the binary of a GPL-2+ source could itseld
> licensed as GPL-3+. Generally, Debian may add additional restrictions to
> a binary, as long as they are conform to the source license(s) and the
> DFSG. My personal understanding of Debian liberalism is that we don't,
> but I couldn't find a definitive statement for that.
> So, I think, of we offer binary packages, we must clearly define the
> conditions of this offer Otherwise the offer is not (legally) valid. Or
> am I too naive here?

I don't think that simply using a compiler would be classed as
sufficient creativity for Debian to have any copyright interest in the

Reply to: