Hi! Apologies, if this is not the right place to ask this kind of questions on policy. However, personally, I feel that the corresponding policy section might certainly benefit from a few words of clarification, and so I guess this list is not entirely inappropriate.
Here's my question: Sections 2.3, 4.5, and 12.5 of the policy state: Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright information and distribution license in the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright. "distribution license", singular. But what if there more than one licence is available? I.e.: 1) If a software to be packaged (or parts of it) is distributable under multiple alternative licences, is it allowed / recommended / required to copy all in debian/copyright? More specifically: 2) If one of the alternative licences, when standing alone, would clearly not qualify the package for inclusion in the debian archives (e.g. requires a signed agreeement), is it allowed / recommended / required to drop this particular license alternative? Also: 3) If a part of a package is distributable under multiple alternative licences, but one of these licences, when standing alone, conflicts with the licensing of the other parts of the package(*), is it allowed / recommended / required to drop this particular license alternative? While at it: 4) If the copyright holder of a software packaged for debian decides to grant additional licensing alternatives, retroactively, after the package has already entered the archives. Does this mean the package should / must be updated to include this additional licence alternative(s)? Real world example that prompted the question: A package is licenced *almost* entirely under GPL2+. It includes one small Qt- add-on library, which is copied with some modifications from a Qt-Solutions library (Actually this library is compiled / linked against, on MS Windows, only). This small library allows distribution under a) Qt commercial licence, b) LGPL 2.1 with Qt LPGL exception (**), c) GPL 3.0. Thanks! Thomas (*): This could be a problem in either direction: Either this licence alternative does not allow the kind of usage that is applicable in the package, or the licence of the remainder of the package prohibits reliance on code under this licence alternative. (**): Essentially, the exception allows copying of certain trivial parts under *any* licence terms. Usage in the package in question clearly exceeds what is covered by the exception.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
