Eriberto Mota writes ("Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+"):
> Now, I would like to understand why the packaging isn't a derivative
> work (when haven't a patch). So, I am thinking that is because Debian
> distributes, separately, the upstream code (orig.tar.gz)
Thanks all for explanations. This question is clear to me now.
Regards,
Eriberto
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/CAP+dXJe=hwzz5xsvavfrqhbqwq2dblfeg
Eriberto Mota writes:
> Now, I would like to understand why the packaging isn't a derivative
> work (when haven't a patch).
The term “derived work” or “derivative work” is a term of art from
copyright law. The determination of whether one work is, in this sense,
derived from some particular othe
On 22/08/14 14:25, Eriberto Mota wrote:
> So, I am thinking that is because Debian
> distributes, separately, the upstream code (orig.tar.gz) and
> debian.tar.xz. Is this? But, the .deb is a product of the junction of
> these files. So, I am confused. Can you clarify me this issue?
The key thing h
Charles and Ian, thanks for explanations.
Now, I would like to understand why the packaging isn't a derivative
work (when haven't a patch). So, I am thinking that is because Debian
distributes, separately, the upstream code (orig.tar.gz) and
debian.tar.xz. Is this? But, the .deb is a product of th
Le Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:43:09PM +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > Thanks a lot for your reply Charles. But I am a bit confuse... Is the
> > debian/ a derivative work from upstream code? If yes, must be the
> > license GPL-3+ or not?
>
> No, it is not a derivative work. (Except for debian/patche
> Thanks a lot for your reply Charles. But I am a bit confuse... Is the
> debian/ a derivative work from upstream code? If yes, must be the
> license GPL-3+ or not?
No, it is not a derivative work. (Except for debian/patches/ if you
use that, but that's presumably not what you mean.)
> I didn't
2014-08-19 18:44 GMT-03:00 Charles Plessy :
> if your packaging work contains copyrightable parts (note that some typical
> files in debian directories are definitely trivial and therefore
> non-copyrightable), then their license need to be compatible with the upstream
> sources if they are combine
Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+"):
> Note that the importance is compatibility. You can definitely chose
> a more permissive license, like CC0, MIT, etc. if you wish so.
I think that best practice is to choose a very permissive licence for
the
Le Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:15:46AM -0300, Eriberto Mota a écrit :
>
> I have a doubt about a situation.
>
> The upstream source code is GPL3+. Packaging is a derivative work and
> I think that it must be GPL. So, GPL-3+, right? Or can the debian/* be
> GPL-2+?
Dear Eriberto,
if your packaging w
Hi,
I have a doubt about a situation.
The upstream source code is GPL3+. Packaging is a derivative work and
I think that it must be GPL. So, GPL-3+, right? Or can the debian/* be
GPL-2+?
>From FSF site[1]:
-
Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?
No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, suc
11 matches
Mail list logo
