License for debian packaging of non-free works (Re: GMAP -- Align mRNA and EST sequences to a genome).

[Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>]

Le Tue, May 11, 2010 at 08:32:28AM +0200, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 05:31:12PM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
> > > Since this license is not compatible with
> > >   the GPL, I recommend that you chose another license for your packaging work, in
> > >   order to avoid headaches in the future.
> > 
> > Can you recommend a license that is DFSG free and compatible with the
> > upstream license?
> 
> I'm quite frequently using:
> 
>   Files: debian/*
>   License: Same as <program name>
> 
> (in case it <program has a DFSG free license).  Otherwise in most cases
> BSD license will fit.

Dear Shaun and Andreas,

indeed “same as gmap itelf” would not comply with DFSG. This would still
acceptable for the non-free section of the Debian archive, but goes against our
commitment for Free software.

In this situation, I tend to pick licenses that are even more permissive than
the BSD, so that upstream can do whatever they want with the material
I forward. For instance, in the clustalw package, I have this:

  Files: debian/clustalw.1.xml, debian/clustalw.1
  Copyright: © 2008 Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>
  Licence: Public Domain
   The manual page and its XML source can be used, modified, and
   redistributed as if it were in public domain.

An alternative is to give the right to relicense to the upstream authors.

More recently, I have used a more fancy license to indicate my intention
to have my work treated as if it were in the public domain:
http://blitiri.com.ar/p/bola/

However, I understand that one may prefer a more common license. I just would
like to point out one inconvenience of the so-called “BDS license”, which is
that actually each instance usually differs by the list of names that is given
in the non-endorsment clause. Therefore, when collating copyright notices, each
variant of the BSD license has to be listed, which is annoying when projects
aggregate larger quantity of contributions.

Here are a non-comprehensive list of “invariant” alternatives:

 - The Boost Software License (http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt).
 - The ISC license (https://www.isc.org/software/license).
 - The FreeBSD license (http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html).
 - The Gnu all-permissive license (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GNUAllPermissive),
   that is even simpler but still include a non-warranty disclaimer.

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles