On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Charles Plessy<ple...@debian.org> wrote: > Le Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:33:58AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit : >> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Charles Plessy<ple...@debian.org> wrote: >> >> > The dh_make template for debian/copyright induces many developers to put >> > their >> > packaging work under the GPL, and I have already seen packages whose >> > license is >> > otherwise BSD-ish with such patches. If the maintainer suddenly goes MIA >> > and >> > the patch is non-trivial, then in theory if we want to respect what is >> > written, >> > we are stuck with a GPL'ed patch. Therefore, we have an optional License >> > field >> > to make things crystal clear if necessary. >> >> Sounds like dh_make needs a bug report about the default packagaging >> license, could you file one? > > Dear all, > > we just had a case in the Debian Med packaging team where the upstream author > of software licensed under terms similar to the BSD license got upset to see > the Debian packaging licenced under the GPL, and posted a reminder that GPLed > contributions to his software will not be accepted. Yes, this is precisely why the pkg-perl team usually goes with "same terms as Perl itself" (Artistic | GPL) and whatever the upstream licensing terms are (usually Artistic | GPL but sometimes BSD).
So for example if upstream is BSD-licensed, then I'd personally put something like: Artistic | GPL | BSD for the debian/* files My reasoning is that the upstream can get stuff like patches back into their software (the BSD) provision but also allows anyone that can use Perl to use the patch (Artistic | GPL). Further, if upstream decides later to change to the "same as Perl" license (it is probably the most popular license on CPAN), it is okay for them to do so (with our patches). In the case of Debian-Med (being an outsider and not knowing what the team works with), I'd say explicitly licensing your debian/* files under the same license as upstream would be appropriate, or perhaps a combination of upstream | GPL licensing. This is clearly a discussion we all need to have within teams/package groups/etc -- namely, what do we want our debian/* files to be licensed under. > > This reminded me of this thread and I filled the bug #540740. > > (Note that it is not only about patches, but all the other possible > contributions: documentation, artwork,…) > > Have a nice day, > > -- > Charles Plessy > Debian Med packaging team, > http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med > Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
