Hi Soren,
On 06/02/2025 22:04, Soren Stoutner wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2025 2:33:13 PM MST Ahmad Khalifa wrote:
> > > > Files: inc/gmp.bi
> > > >
> > > > bootstrap/inc/gmp.bi
> > > >
> > > > Copyright: The FreeBASIC Development Team
> > > >
> > > > 1991-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > > >
> > > > License: GPL-2+, and GPL-2+ or LGPL-3+
> > >
> > > And this is one of the occurrences where the original was A OR
B, so now
> > > it says "A AND (A OR B)", which again looks silly.
> >
> > I recently did something like this:
> >
> > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/maildrop/-/blob/master/debian/
copyright?
> > ref_type=heads#L68
>
> Oh this works and lintian doesn't complain about parenthesis!
> Section 7.2 in that copyright format has this obscure comma based
> format. More natural language, but slightly ambiguous.
>
> But are you also saying to keep the AND/OR and not squash them down?
The LGPL-3+ cannot be subsumed into the GPL-2+ without turning it into
the GPL-3+. So, I think the only way to accurately state what happened is:
License: GPL-2+ and (GPL-2+ or LGPL-3+)
This says that the original file was available under the GPL-2+ or the
LGPL-3+. The FreeBASIC Development Team decided to utilize the file
under the GPL-2+ option, and then licensed their code translation under
the GPL-2+. This means that the current version of the file is only
available under the GPL-2+.
Alternatively, you could do:
License: GPL-2+
Comment:
Free Software Foundation licensed the original file was under the
GPL-2+ or
the LGPL-3+. The FreeBASIC Development Team decided to utilize the file
under the GPL-2+ option, and then licensed their code translation
under the
GPL-2+.
Understood, no squashing due to the compatibility this time, but in
other cases it's ok. Going to go back to the compatibility matrix for a
bit before making changes.
> If I may debate a little here...
> You're quite right in that the accurate picture is to group the files
> according to their copyrights and licenses. And even to separate out the
> HPND licenses into their verbatim copyright holder versions: HPND-DEC,
> HPND-Keith, HPND-SGI, HPND-HP, ...
>
> But in practice, what's wrong with adding licenses, even if they're
> superfluous?
> If the goal here is to protect debian from any incorrect usage due to
> debian's declaration of copyright on distributed software, isn't it safe
> to pile on more licenses? Similar to how we lump up several copyright
> holders over multiple files.
> It only makes it "inconvenient" to use the files without reading their
> individual license in the rare case that someone wants to fish out a
> single file and lump it with another non-free license.
>
> In other words, isn't it safer to add an extra license to a whole
> directory than to forget a license on a single file?
>
> Of course, this is partially motivated by the objective to reduce the
> maintenance effort here, but can't help wonder why no other distribution
> system has this level of granularity and still thrives (fedora, flatpak,
> ubuntu, ...).
If that were the case, then each debian/copyright file would just
contain one stanza.
Files: *
Copyright: All the copyright statements in the package.
License: All the licenses in the package.
You propose that like it's a bad thing, but I would find it amazing if
it's possible. It's fair to the authors who get recognised similar to an
AUTHORS/CONTRIBUTORS file, and it's a nice heads up to anyone who wants
to use the source of what licenses may be involved.
I could have saved 2 weeks fiddling with coreboot's copyright file last
year if this was an accepted option.
This is counter to the design of DEP-5. If you feel strongly about
this, you are welcome to propose an update to DEP-5, but I think it is
accurate to say that Debian’s current practice is that the license
listed under a files stanza should apply equally to each file in that
stanza.
I feel strongly about it, but this is beyond my pay grade. (and also
having seen some previous discussions on DEP-5, I know there are other
strong opinions there too)
--
Regards,
Ahmad
