On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 05:53:04PM -0200, Eriberto wrote: > Ok. But in my package I chose the GPL as license (debian/copyright file).
You can do that, and it sort of makes sense if you want to release your
packaging only under the GPL. However, you can still allow the other
options for the users even in that case. Removing their ability to
choose a license is in conflict with "our users" as a priority. You can
argue that it is good for "free software" (and therefore not a real
conflict with the social contract), but that sounds too political for
me. ;-)
Removing the ability for the user to choose one of the other licenses
should IMO only be done when you make changes to the files, and you
don't want your changes to fall under the other licenses. Without
changes, all that you accomplish by removing the licenses is that users
need to find some other place to get the source from, if they want it
under the other licenses. That just makes life harder for them, with no
clear reason.
So I think it is better if you do not choose a license (unless you did
indeed change the files themselves, in which case you can choose
whatever you want), and leave the choice to the users. And in that
case, all available licenses must be in debian/copyright.
Thanks,
Bas
Ps: IANAL, and for details about these things, debian-legal is probably
a better list.
--
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
