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

Re: How to document "special" copyright cases (dual-licensing granted by upstream)

Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre <mathieu.tl@gmail.com> writes:

> What is the proper way of reporting the fact that I've got upstream to
> agree to dual-licensing of some files? Surely this information needs
> to be documented somewhere in the package?

Yes, this is exactly the purpose of the ‘copyright’ file. Document the
precise wording, from the copyright holders in the work, that grants the
permissions needed to include the work in Debian.

> Sorry if this has already been discussed multiple times in the past.
> I've done some searching, but for example the Reject FAQ doesn't seem
> to say *how* to document such special cases.

Simply show the exact wording from the work's copyright holders that
grants license (the “license grant”). It doesn't matter whether that
wording comes from the source code of the work, or from an email
message; just so long as you have good reason to believe it is written
by the copyright holders and applies clearly to this work.

Do note DFSG §8 as well; some copyright holders use terminology that
doesn't make it clear the grant passes that guideline (e.g. “you have
permission” in an email message doesn't make it explicit the grant is
transferable from Debian).

 \            “If you continue running Windows, your system may become |
  `\        unstable.” —Microsoft, Windows 95 bluescreen error message |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Reply to: