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

Re: [DEP5] License field in the first paragraph ?

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:32:38AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:23:44AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

But there are two other main reasons why I want an overall package license:

* It's common to release GPL'd software that includes some 2-clause-BSD-licensed files, taking advantage of the ability to relicense under the BSD licensing terms. In this case, the distribution as a whole is released under the GPL, but those files are still under the BSD. Without a global License statement, there isn't a good way to represent this without requiring someone draw that inference from the licenses of the individual files.

* I suspect that a lot of people won't be interested in documenting the license and copyright terms of every individual file, and ftpmaster has in the past allowed this in many cases when the package is huge and all the files are licensed under compatible terms. In that case, it's nice to be able to just specify a general package license and make it explicit that one is not claiming to have a comprehensive listing of all files with their copyright and license statements.

I believe that both of above essentially is about _our_ relicensing, rather than just documenting _upstream_ licensing.

Hm, well, given that I've been asking for this specifically so that I can use DEP-5 as upstream for my upstream LICENSE file, I obviously don't agree. And the first point above is, to me, all about upstream's licensing, not about ours.

Oh, yes.  I get it now.

I.e. regarding my example, even if DEP5 should be corrected to also mention License: in header paragraph, I should _still_ below that include a "Files: *" paragraph with identical Copyright and License, because the header covers our relicensing and the Files paragraphs cover upstream licensing.

You should only do that if you're claiming that you've checked all the files in the package and they're released under that explicit license and not some other, compatible license, IMO.

...but I don't this (and therefore also not fully the first either):

Let's say you as upstream in a LICENSE file in the root of your tarball claim e.g. GPL-2+ and I during packaging discovers that the tarball also contains some files which are BSD-2-clause.

Then you here tell me that it makes sense that you as upstream put GPL-2+ in the header paragraph of your LICENSE file, but that it is wrong of me to do the same in debian/copyright - even if both files document exact same sources (only debian/copyright additionally covers debian/ subdir too)?

Sorry for being dense,

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: