On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 12:37:46 PM MST Ahmad Khalifa wrote:
> Hi Soren,
>
> On 04/02/2025 22:13, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 2, 2025 12:33:58 PM MST Ahmad Khalifa wrote:
> >> On 01/02/2025 18:16, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, February 1, 2025 8:46:23 AM MST Ahmad Khalifa wrote:
> >>> > For all those files, I believe the copyright holder is the author of
> >>> > the
> >>> > FB file, not the original header.
> >>>
> >>> The copyright holder is both. Anytime you have an original file that is
> >>> then translated by someone else, the resulting copyright of the
> >>> translated file is both parties (unless one or both of the parties have
> >>> assigned their copyright to someone else, which would generally be
> >>> spelled out somewhere in the documentation).
> >>
> >> Ok, that makes sense.
> >> This probably means the License is also both, the original file AND the
> >> FB file.
> >
> > That depends on what the licenses are. The following are four interesting
> > points about these types of scenarios.
> >
> > 1. Generally, it is best if the same license is used for both the original
> > file and the translated version, but we often don't have much control over
> > what upstreams do, especially when one upstream created the file in one
> > language and another upstream translated it into a different language.
> >
> > 2. For obvious reasons, if a translation into a new programming language
> > uses a different license, it needs to be compatible with the original
> > language. In that case, the resulting file will be licensed under both
> > License 1 AND License 2 (meaning that anyone who uses it needs to comply
> > with both licenses).
> Problem here is I have no idea what's compatible past knowing that "no
> selling" is bad. But the file gets removed for that anyway, so this is
> the easy case. For example ran into "Aladdin" but that one itself
> disqualified the file directly.
>
> > 3. In some cases, one license can subsume another license. For example, if
> > the original file was licensed under the GPL-2+ and the translated file is
> > licensed under the GPL-3+, then you should only list GPL-3+ in debian/
> > copyright because the old license explicitly states it can be subsumed under
> > the new license, so the resulting work is only available under the GPL-3+.
>
> This makes sense, but I don't know if I should be doing that and
> removing a license that applies. Even if one subsumes the other, I'd
> keep it for the pure traceability of it.
> I'll have another read just in case.
>
> But to be honest, I don't think anyone is ever going to read the
> d/copyright file on this package. Anyone looking for a license is
> checking the source directly.
>
> > 4. It is best if upstream is explicit about the copyright and licensing in
> > the header of the file. For example, they could state that the original
> > contents were Copyright A under License B and the translated contents are
> > Copyright C under License D, with the user being required to comply with
> > both
> > the requirements of License B and License D. If upstream has not been
> > explicit about this in the header of the file, you might consider suggesting
> > they do so.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to explain this, I think I need to go back
> with the knowledge of #3 and #4 and have another look, even though I was
> close to done.
>
> Your whole message belongs on the Wiki.
> (I'd offer to post it for you, but I recently learned that the wiki has
> per-page licensing as well :O )
If you would like me to take a look at a specific file instead of discussing this somewhat in the abstract I would be happy to do so.
--
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.