On 14/11/14 19:19, Ole Streicher wrote: > Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> writes: >> I am not aware of any update on the matter: I suppose the determination >> of the effective licenses of binary packages is still something to be >> done manually. >> >> I hope this answers Ole's question, although maybe in a disappointing >> way... > > I am not sure if this is legally so simple: As far as I understand > licensing, it is the way to allow others to use the product (sorry for > unprofessional wording here; I am not at all a specialist in that). > > That means, that as long as we don't allow someone to use a binary > package, he is neither allowed to copy it, nor to use it in any way. We > (Debian) must grant him some rights. > > Currently, I don't see that we do that anywhere. debian/copyright refers > only to sources, not to binaries. > > Also, the license of the binary is not (always) an unambigious result of > the source packages: a BSD only licensed source file may also end up in > a GPL licensed binary. or the binary of a GPL-2+ source could itseld > licensed as GPL-3+. Generally, Debian may add additional restrictions to > a binary, as long as they are conform to the source license(s) and the > DFSG. My personal understanding of Debian liberalism is that we don't, > but I couldn't find a definitive statement for that. > > So, I think, of we offer binary packages, we must clearly define the > conditions of this offer Otherwise the offer is not (legally) valid. Or > am I too naive here?
I don't think that simply using a compiler would be classed as sufficient creativity for Debian to have any copyright interest in the binaries. -- 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/546669cb.90...@bitmessage.ch
