Le lundi 10 août 2009 09:58:04, Jonathan Yu a écrit : > 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.
And also what exactly is covered by the license claim. For instance, in the case of patches contained in debian/, I have some doubts about the license that applies. Usually, when one wants to propose a patch to a project, it has to do it under the original licence. That's particularly the case if the patch consists, for instance, of the diff of a commit from the current developpement code of the same upstream project... Hence, are patches in debian/ covered by the license claimed for the project upstream, or for the debian packaging ? Romain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
