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

Re: Question about BuSL / transform-on-time licenses



>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Brockmeier <jzb@lwn.net> writes:

    Joe> Hi all, The Fedora Project is discussing how to properly
    Joe> represent code that was originally licensed under the Business
    Joe> Source License (BuSL) and other licenses that transform on
    Joe> time. [1]

    Joe> Specifically - let's say there's a project that uses the
    Joe> Business Source License (BuSL) and is supposed to convert to
    Joe> GPL after N years.  Obviously, the GPL is an acceptable license
    Joe> for Debian - but what steps would be required to ensure the
    Joe> entire codebase had converted so that no parts would still be
    Joe> under BuSL?

Stuff like this is why only Debian Developers can sign uploads that go
through new.

1) Some DD signs the package and explains in debian/copyright why they
believe it is under a free license.

2) They probably explain why they believe we are going to be able to
provide security support if new upstream development is under a non-free
license.  This may be an easy question to answer if we are packaging a
fork where ongoing development is GPL.

3) They sign and upload.

4) The fptmaster team member reviewing the package considers their
explanation as to why they believe the package is free.  The ftpmaster
agrees and accepts it into Debian or disagrees and rejects.

For some packages, this might be a really easy review.
For example if it is packaging a git repo and we can show that the
latest commit under the business license is old enough and all future
commits have been licensed under GPL.
(There's always the possibility that someone cross-copied code
incorrectly or something, but that's always true.)
In other cases it might be a very difficult review.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: