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

Re: CUPS GPL → Apache license change, how to proceed?

(Adding d-legal)

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("CUPS GPL → Apache license change, how to proceed?"):
> tl,dr; CUPS has moved from "GPL-2.0 with AOSDL exception" to
> "Apache-2.0"; how should the license incompatibilities be enforced?

This reply is going to be annoying, I fear:

> Some questions at this point (Some for FTP Masters, CC'ed):
> - Does Debian hold the view that Apache-2.0 and GPL-2.0-only dynamic linking 
> is unacceptable for Debian main?  In both directions?

I think the answer is "yes, we think that is unacceptable".

ftpmaster seem rarely to reply to these kind of questions.  If you
actually want the answer, I suggest you:
 - search for existing cases and see if they got REJECTed or ACCEPTted
 - upload and see

> - Can CUPS link against GPL-2-only code?
> - Can GPL-2-only code link against CUPS?

I don't understand how these are different to the previous question.

> - Whose reponsibility is it to check for these incompatibilities, and make 
> sure they are not shipped in Debian?

I think (and this is my personal opinion) that a licence
incompatibility is a bug in the depending package, and it is the
responsibility of the depending package maintainer.

> - What tools should I be using to identify which of these will be
> undistributable constructs?

I'm not aware of any useful tools and I hope someone else will be
able to help.

>  Aka: how, given a list of source
> packages, can I determine which are GPL-2-only in the codepaths that
> link against CUPS?  - What fields could I / should I use in src:cups
> to enforce these?  I was initially thinking of setting versionless
> Breaks: in each src:cups' library against the identified GPL-2-only
> culprits, then mass-filing bugs against these, promising to add
> version constraints when/if the licensing issue gets lifted. Does
> that sound like a good way forward?

I guess.  It seems like a lot of work, and the cups transition would
be blocked.

You might instead consider simply filing bugs against the
dependencies, and setting a deadline by which they will be escalated
to RC.  You will want to discuss this with the release team.

Good luck.


Reply to: