Paul Tagliamonte writes ("Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts"):
> 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.
My recommendation is to use a permissive licence for the packaging.
That GPL'd debian/* files cause a problem in some cases is not an
argument against MIT'd debian/* files !
(Also: there is a difference between _packaging_ and _patches_. The
latter can reasonably be under upstream's licence, and I would
normally send _patches_ upstream under upstream's usual terms. But if
you don't want to mess about with this distinction then a permissive
licence also works.)
> 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.
I agree that if you are not taking my advice to use a permissive
licence, you should match upstream's licence.
> 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.
I agree with this.
Thanks,
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21786.53831.778907.404...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
