On Wednesday, February 5, 2025 12:37:46 PM MST Ahmad Khalifa wrote: > 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 )
If you would like me to take a look at a specific file instead of discussing this somewhat in the abstract I would be happy to do so. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
