Re: Bug#218832: ITP: libnettle -- a low-level cryptographic library
[Follows set to debian-legal.] On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:22:31PM -0500, John Belmonte wrote: If the library as a whole must be under GPL license, how is it significant that parts of it were once under LGPL or on the public domain? The purpose of the License field is to tell the user what license the software in the package is under, not to give a history of previous or constituent licensing. I don't think you understand licensing very well. If more than one party still holds copyright in an aggregate work, no one party can make a single license apply to the work as a whole, as you say. What do you mean by once under the LGPL or public domain? What mechanism do you propose causes works to stop being licensed under the LGPL, or withdrawn from the public domain? Mere distribution in compliance with the terms of the GNU GPL is certainly not such a mechanism. Historical (i.e., inapplicable) licensing is not necessarily something that needs to be explained in a debian/copyright file, though it might be of use to people if there are many confused questions on the subject with respect to a given package. Constituent license is indeed apropos for debian/copyright, as it's reasonable to expect our users to be bound by those licenses if they attempt to modify or further distribute the packge in question. I suggest you scrutinize the licenses in your own packages more closely, as you appear to have been working from a number of invalid assumptions. If you have any questions, please consult the debian-legal mailing list for advice. -- G. Branden Robinson|When we call others dogmatic, what Debian GNU/Linux |we really object to is their [EMAIL PROTECTED] |holding dogmas that are different http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |from our own. -- Charles Issawi signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#218832: ITP: libnettle -- a low-level cryptographic library
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 02:43:21PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: a single license apply to the work as a whole, as you say. What do you mean by once under the LGPL or public domain? What mechanism do you propose causes works to stop being licensed under the LGPL, or withdrawn from the public domain? Mere distribution in compliance with the terms of the GNU GPL is certainly not such a mechanism. I think what's being said is that this work, or any part of it _can be_ distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL, which is certainly accurate if it incorporates a mixture of works under the GNU GPL, works under the GNU LGPL, and works in the public domain. The copyright file need not be exhaustive. As an example, I am the sole copyright holder of works which I allow to be distibuted under the terms of the GNU GPL. Also, if you pay me a certain number of dollars, I'll grant you a non-exclusive but otherwise unlimited license to copy, modify, and distribute the work. The package copyright file needn't mention the availability of the second license provided the first is adequite to permit distribution by Debian while also satisfying our Free Software Guidelines. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp582BnTf4zy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#218832: ITP: libnettle -- a low-level cryptographic library
Branden, I don't disagree with anything you've stated regarding my sloppy arguments. However, as you are implying on a public forum that I don't grasp the subject matter of licenses, I'm going to defend myself a little. I wrote, unfortunately, If the library as a whole must be under GPL license, how is it significant that parts of it were once under LGPL or on the public domain? What I meant was if a library file (in object form) contains both GPL and non-GPL'd software, how is it significant that any of it is non-GPL? This was from the admittedly narrow point of view of an application that can't use GPL'd software, a case I had stuck in my head. The libnettle maintainer pointed out that it is significant, because such an application can still statically link to the library, assuming it only drew from non-GPL object files. I'm interested in the notion of license metadata for file packages (in the general sense)-- what the semantics would be, whether or how it could be useful, etc. As someone pointed out, there is no such thing for Debian packages. But ITP's do have the License field, so I was asking about the semantics of an entry like GPL, LGPL, public domain. Here it means that parts of the package are covered by one license, parts by another, etc. It doesn't always mean this. See http://bugs.debian.org/205951, for example. Regards, -John Belmonte Branden Robinson wrote: [Follows set to debian-legal.] On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:22:31PM -0500, John Belmonte wrote: If the library as a whole must be under GPL license, how is it significant that parts of it were once under LGPL or on the public domain? The purpose of the License field is to tell the user what license the software in the package is under, not to give a history of previous or constituent licensing. I don't think you understand licensing very well. If more than one party still holds copyright in an aggregate work, no one party can make a single license apply to the work as a whole, as you say. What do you mean by once under the LGPL or public domain? What mechanism do you propose causes works to stop being licensed under the LGPL, or withdrawn from the public domain? Mere distribution in compliance with the terms of the GNU GPL is certainly not such a mechanism. Historical (i.e., inapplicable) licensing is not necessarily something that needs to be explained in a debian/copyright file, though it might be of use to people if there are many confused questions on the subject with respect to a given package. Constituent license is indeed apropos for debian/copyright, as it's reasonable to expect our users to be bound by those licenses if they attempt to modify or further distribute the packge in question. I suggest you scrutinize the licenses in your own packages more closely, as you appear to have been working from a number of invalid assumptions. If you have any questions, please consult the debian-legal mailing list for advice. -- http:// if ile.o g/
