Hi Soren,
On 04/02/2025 22:13, Soren Stoutner wrote:
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).
Problem here is I have no idea what's compatible past knowing that "no
selling" is bad. But the file gets removed for that anyway, so this is
the easy case. For example ran into "Aladdin" but that one itself
disqualified the file directly.
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+.
This makes sense, but I don't know if I should be doing that and
removing a license that applies. Even if one subsumes the other, I'd
keep it for the pure traceability of it.
I'll have another read just in case.
But to be honest, I don't think anyone is ever going to read the
d/copyright file on this package. Anyone looking for a license is
checking the source directly.
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.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this, I think I need to go back
with the knowledge of #3 and #4 and have another look, even though I was
close to done.
Your whole message belongs on the Wiki.
(I'd offer to post it for you, but I recently learned that the wiki has
per-page licensing as well :O )
--
Regards,
Ahmad
