Wesley J. Landaker writes: > On Thursday 27 April 2006 05:41, Panu Kalliokoski wrote: > > When discussing a package with my sponsor, I thought about a licensing > > issue that has never occurred to me before. Debian packages are very > > careful to mention the license(s) and copyright(s) of the files in the > > upstream distribution, but where are the license conditions of files > > that the packager has added? The manual page (if added by the packager) > > usually gives something license-like in the author section, but what > > about the other stuff? > > "The first rule of debian/ directory licensing is, we don't talk about > debian/ directory licensing." ... =) > > Seriously though, I think this is something we as maintainers should be more > clear about. I know in my packaging I always *intend* that my packaging > falls under the same license as the code I'm packaging. > > But maybe it would be good to add this more specifically into the > debian/copyright file: > > Original software, Copyright 200x Upstream Author > Upstream license text > + > +Debian packaging, Copyright 200x Package Maintainer > + Packaging license text > > What do other folks think?
Many packages already have notices to that effect. Partial results from a quick grep: xutils and a lot of other XSF packages, openssh, openoffice.org packages, and mailcrypt. It's probably worth a best practices entry in developers-reference. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]