Hi Thomas, On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 03:19:59PM +0100, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote: > 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? It is allowed to copy all in debian/copyright. It is required only if the distribution of this software in Debian relies on all of these licenses - e.g. if there are multiple reverse dependencies of the software, with mutually-incompatible requirements for the license of the libraries they use, such that the library must simultaneously be made available under multiple licenses. > 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? Allowed but never required. > 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? Not required. However, my own recommendation is that wherever possible, binary packages should list the effective license of the binaries. Listing licenses that only apply to the sources, in the copyright file for a binary package, is unnecessarily confusing. Unfortunately we don't really have tools that support doing this right now. > 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)? You're certainly allowed to... but there's no requirement. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
