On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 02:28:40PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ben Finney writes ("Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts"):
> > For free software, this forum normally recommends that the Debian
> > packaging copyright holders should choose to grant the same license to
> > the Debian packaging files as the general license for the upstream work.
>
> I disagree both with this recommendation, and with the assertion that
> we normally recommend using the same licence for Debian packaging as
> upstream use for the program.This makes sense for cases where you have patches which are creative; I've seen a lot of GPL'd debian/* files, and patches against a BSD-4 codebase. I question this, and it'd also prevent upstream from taking it in. In the case where you're not using the least common denominator of licensing (BSD-2, Expat, ISC) for debian/*, matching it to upstream *is* good advice. Either way, I stand by my email in <20150330190830.ga12...@helios.pault.ag>, and 'check the copyright file' is the best advice for the original question. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
