On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:12:18 +0100, David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Saturday 12 November 2005 05:09, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >> To be more specific: I don't believe that the fact that software >> >> A is being packaged with Debians tools is a derived work of said >> >> tools, >> >> Hmm. What about software bits of the package (maintainer scripts, >> added utilities, prompting infrastructure ) under copyright by >> Debian developers -- do they count? > Upon rereading my sentence there, I see that it doesn't parse as > correct english. I tried to express my belief, that packaging a > software with Debian tools does not make the software itself a > derived work. The other question is whether the package as a whole > constitutes more than a "medium of distribution" but I believe it > customary that maintainer scripts follow the upstream license, which > alleviates this problem usually. Customary, but not required. My maintainer scripts often use a compatible, but not identical, license. And, obviously, the copyright owner is different. manoj -- Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]