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). 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+. 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. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
