Re: unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in adopted package
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Nicholas D Steeves writes ("unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in adopted package"):
> > I'm adopting src:muse-el, and the old d/copyright file does not
> > state which license the old debian/* uses.
>
> This kind of thing is quite annoying.
Agreed. The Debian packaging should have an explicit grant of license,
recorded in ‘debian/copyright’ specifically for the ‘debian/*’ pattern
so that if upstream's licensing changes the Debian packaging license
continues to be clear.
> I would encourage everyone who does packaging to explictly licence
> your debian/* with some very permissive licence (eg, MIT).
I default to grating “GPLv3 or later” for mine; often I'll change that
to match the upstream work's license grant.
I don't see any special reason to prefer lax license grants for Debian
packaging, so I default to copyleft.
> > I was recently able to contact Michael Olson. Would a signed email
> > from Michael Olson certifying that his contributions to debian/*
> > were of either GPL-2, GPL-2+, or MIT be sufficient to allow an
> > update to src:muse-el/debian/copyright? If so, to whom should I ask
> > him to send that email?
>
> The mail does not have to be signed.
The principle is to consider what a hypothetical future package
maintainer, or FTP master or recipient, will need to have to verify the
copyright holder does in fact grant the stated license.
I agree that having the message be cryptographically signed is not
necessary, but it is good to have if feasible.
The important thing is that the grant be explicit, specific as to which
work and which license terms, and that it all be clearly in writing.
--
\ “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the |
`\ death your right to mis-attribute this quote to Voltaire.” |
_o__) —Avram Grumer, rec.arts.sf.written, 2000-05-30 |
Ben Finney
Reply to: