>>>>> "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