There appears to be some question of opinion as to if the Debian MIT (Expat)
License is
the same as the SPDX MIT License.
https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/mit[1]
https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html[2]
Can somebody at Debian Legal please comment?
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@stoutner.com
elines-and-templates/[1]
On Monday, January 16, 2023 11:48:48 PM MST Soren Stoutner wrote:
> There appears to be some question of opinion as to if the Debian MIT (Expat)
> License is the same as the SPDX MIT License.
>
> https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/mit[1]
>
> https://
> I think the answer is that what Debian calls "MIT (Expat)" on that
> page matches what SPDX calls "MIT" (I don't think they are "the same"
> because the underlying concepts of what a license is and so forth are
> not the same).
>
> Richard
is? If it is not a BSD variant, how should it be dealt with/named?
>
> [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/unworkable
>
> Regards,
>
> David
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
: 2013-2015 Vasudev Kamath
2013 Gregor Herrmann
2013-2021 Tristan Seligmann
2019-2020 Laurent Bigonville
2022 Bastian Germann
2022-2024 Soren Stoutner
License: GPL-3+
Comment:
The following copyright holders additionally license their
+ file can be contributed to
an upstream GPLv3+ project (that’s the beauty of using GPLv2+ instead of
GPLv2: it can be converted to later versions with any additional permission
from the copyright holders).
On Friday, April 12, 2024 12:40:55 PM MST Soren Stoutner wrote:
> As an additio
24 12:48:20 PM MST Soren Stoutner wrote:
> As an additional followup, as the original debian/* files were licensed
> GPLv2+, if you edit a file you can choose to make your contribution GPLv3+,
> which would convert the entire file to GPLv3+. If you end up editing all of
> the files in
MST Arun Kumar Pariyar wrote:
> Dear Legal Team,
>
> Can LGPL-3+ and LGPL-2.1 licensed code be used together in the same library,
> or is re-licensing required?
> Your guidance on their compatibility would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> ~ Arun Kumar Pariya
On Wednesday, June 26, 2024 3:13:38 PM MST Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> Soren Stoutner writes:
> > As an additional followup, as the original debian/* files were licensed
> > GPLv2+, if you edit a file you can choose to make your contribution GPLv3+,
> > which would conve
bian/*.
[1] https://sources.debian.org/src/web-mode/17.0.2-1/debian/copyright/
[2] https://sources.debian.org/src/web-mode/17.0.2-1/debian/changelog/
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
rightable the
contents of debian/* are, the consensus of the Debian community is that they
are copyrightable and that the copyright and licensing information should be
explicitly stated.
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
tatus of the icons (which is separate
from any trademark issues)?
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
‘+dfsg’. As an example, see:
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/electrum
So, this isn’t a blocker for Debian packaging, but it is necessary that you
document (in debian/copyright) that every file that ends up in the tarballs
that are archived on Debian servers in “main” as part of the source package
to remove files in the source tree that are
not compatible
with the DFSG. This is because the files would remain in the upstream tarball,
and thus in
the source package, so the source package would continue to violate DFSG.
Instead, the
upstream source should be repacked to remove those fil
able the complete source code of those modifications”
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
to which is the original package) and that is not
considered a DFSG problem.
2. It requires that derivatives must use the same license. That isn’t a
standard part of a MIT (Expat) license, but it is a standard part of other
DFSG licenses (like the GPL), so I don’t think it would be a DFSG
es of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.” Those exact
words appear at the top of the GPL, which is considered a free license.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Florian,
On Friday, November 29, 2024 1:22:07 AM MST Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Soren Stoutner:
> > The GFDL with Invariant Section is not the right comparison. The correct
> > comparison is to the GPL (which has the exact same wording).
>
> The FSF gives permission to make
argument that the DCO isn’t *effective* at supporting
the chain of custody of the end-user licensing of the code, but I think that
without question that is what the *intention* of the DCO is.
https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/dco
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This
On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 6:40:11 AM MST Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Soren Stoutner writes:
> > On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 4:48:30 AM MST Ulrich Müller wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, November
, I can see no reason to assume that these
files are not DFSG-free (it sounds like the previous maintainer made an
assumption instead of having any definitive information). Unless someone
provides some evidence to the contrary, I think you are fine to include them in
the package along with co
of custody of the license. It documents that
the person providing the license has the right to provide you with the
license, similar to how a copyright statement documents that the person
providing the license has the right to provide you with the license.
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signa
red to the end users. Rather, it is part of the license
under which the files are delivered from the contributor to the project.
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
about the GPL will automatically apply to the DCO.
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
lf shouldn’t appear, but the results of any
contributions to the project made under the DCO should. So, for example, the
"open source license indicated in the file” referenced by the DCO should be in
debian/copyright. And, any copyright information the contributor listed in
the file will
ser license, it provides documentation
the project had the rights to license the software the way they did.
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 4:48:30 AM MST Ulrich Müller wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2024, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 27, 2024 2:48:51 AM MST Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >> I don't follow. Do you believe the DCO is a license text?
&g
years when the copyright expires on parts of the
contained work.
It is left to the user to determine when copyright expires for a particular
file if they need to
know that information.
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
ILITY OF
> SUCH DAMAGE.
I would just like to second what has already been stated in this thread, which
is that I don’t
see any problems with this license in non-free, with the note that I think this
license does
preclude the use of anything in debian/patches. Currently, there are no
patche
On Thursday, February 6, 2025 5:08:06 PM MST Ben Ramsey wrote:
> > On Feb 6, 2025, at 13:25, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> >
> > In my opinion, no copyright statement is complete without a year range,
> > because this tells you when the copyright would be expected to expire.
the other licence. The OGLv3.0 is Open Definition compliant."
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
ncluding liability for infringement of any proprietary
> > rights, relating to use of information in this specification and to
> > the implementation of this specification, and TCG disclaims all
> > liability for cost of procurement of substitute goods or services,
> > lost profits
On Friday, March 14, 2025 12:10:45 PM Mountain Standard Time Soren Stoutner
wrote:
> However, as you can’t combine Unsplash or CC-BY-SA 3.0 code with the GPL,
> there is no way you can ship Endless Sky in its current state in Debian or
> anywhere else.
I realized that when I wrote this
e code
for years. Sometimes this is easy to fix upstream and sometimes it takes a lot
of work to
excise the incompatible licenses.
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
ssment. Assuming
he is correct about LICENSE.TERMS applying to these files, and I have
no reason to believe it doesn’t unless somewhere they are listed as
excluded, then this license makes our distribution of these files
DFSG-free. It doesn’t really matter that their header says they woul
ed in a business, or from being used for genetic
research."
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
I will make a new release available shortly.
> I plan to include a small technical change.
Thank you for being so accommodating. We enjoy working with upstream
developers to provide the best experience to our users.
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
ublic domain
worldwide). Also, as you pointed out in your analysis, to exercise the public
domain option
the package maintainer would need to verify that “all references to Project
Gutenberg are
removed”, which you have stated is not currently the case with this package and
doesn’t
worldwide). Also, as you pointed out in your analysis, to exercise the public
domain option
the package maintainer would need to verify that “all references to Project
Gutenberg are
removed”, which you have stated is not currently the case with this package and
doesn’t
appear to be th
es: stanza for each one, even though I
could have
combined them because they are under the same license.
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
gt;
> This new version has been modified to remove incompatible fonts and group all
> remaining fonts by license type.
>
> ---
>
> Additionally, Soren Stoutner pointed out an important detail regarding
> OFL-licensed fonts that have a Reserved Font Name (RFN). My q
tice the CC-BY-ND-4 when I was looking over the
licenses. Definitely DFSG non-free.
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
he license specifies that only CMU has the right to distribute the
software.
Everyone else only has the rights to use or modify it.
My guess is this was just an oversight by the person drafting the license, but
given how it
is written I think it wouldn’t be DFSG-free.
--
Soren Stoutner
so..
43 matches
Mail list logo