Am 29.12.2017 um 23:35 schrieb Russ Allbery: > Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org> writes: > >> Ok I can see the misunderstanding now. The above statement would be >> incorrect for freeorion because it translates to: > >> You are allowed to use the files under GPL-2 and Permissive-License-1 >> and Permissive-License-2 and ... > >> But this is not true. Not all files are dual/triple/-licensed. Actually >> no file is even dual-licensed. > > That's not what "and" means. That would be "or". "and" means you have to > follow all of those licenses when using a work composed of those files, > which sounds correct to me. Of course. My bad! Still in the case of freeorion Jonathan's suggestion would be incorrect. Nobody is obliged to adhere to _all_ license conditions for _all_ files. If there are images licensed under CC-BY, then I certainly don't have to follow all license conditions of the GPL when I create a derivative work based on those images. > It's not correct if you take one of the files from the group in isolation; > in that case, you probably only have to follow one of the licenses. But > that gets back to the question of just what we're supposed to be > documenting in debian/copyright. > >> But if there is even one file which is differently licensed like > >> Files: src/parser.c >> Copyright: 2009, John Jay >> License: Expat > >> you have to mention that in d/copyright. Otherwise your copyright file >> would be incomplete/incorrect under the current Policy requirements. >> This is reject-worthy. > > Policy does not require that. ftpmaster might, which is not quite the > same thing. That's a bold claim. "Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright information and distribution license in the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright" Experience tells me that packages are rejected if they don't mention _each and every_ copyright information. I'm absolutely certain this warrants rejects by the FTP team. In my opinion Policy should always be in sync with ftpmasters decisions. I understand that this is not always easy to achieve but if your statement is true, it is kind of shocking because it means the ftpmasters are above Policy. >> However upstream could simply state that all software is GPL-2+ licensed >> because the Expat license grants them the right to sublicense parser.c. > > The Expat license grants *anyone* the right to do that, so the Debian > package maintainer can do this just as easily as upstream can. This is correct and sounds completely sensible to me. From my personal experience I can say this is not the reality though. We are required to mention public-domain licensed files and very permissive licensed files in d/copyright too. I can't just write the package is licensed under the GPL-2. I have to mention _all_ the different licenses in one package, otherwise my package gets rejected. Perhaps this should be clarified. I would really like to see this happen. Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature