Quoting 刘涛 (2023-03-18 03:49:34) > Oh my god, I'm so sorry. I originally wanted to say that every software > package in Debian will have a "copyright" document, but the input method was > mistakenly typed as copyleft. Because I found that every package in Debian > will have a "copyright" document, but not every package has a "license.txt" > document. So I want to confirm that we users want to know the license usage > of the software package, which document should prevail. In addition, when the > license information declared in the two documents is inconsistent, how should > we deal with it, and which document shall prevail.
Some projects include a file intended to cover the whole project (typically located in the root folder) containing only a general license and nothing else (no copyright statements). Such a file has no legal effect over other files from simply being present in the project. To have effect over other files the project need to have its copyright holders *grant* a license. Some projects include a file intended to cover the whole project (typically located in the root folder) where someone claims to hold copyright and state that they as copyright holder *grant* certain license over all or some portion of the project. This affects those other files that the statement is about. If multiple copyright claims and/or multiple license granting statements, then only the licensing granted by the copyright holder has effect - i.e. if same copyright holder grants multiple licenses then possibly (depending on wording) *either* of those licenses apply, free of choice for each user, but since only a copyright holder has the right to grant a license, if someone claims copyright over a whole project but parts of the project in reality was relicensed from someone else then only that someone else had the right to license their parts. If unclear who owns what and/or who granted what, then beware that legal rules are different from math and logic: In the end copyright and licensing statements are *intents* and their legal effect is only certain when tried in a courtroom (and even then may be tried again with potentially different legal interpretation in another courtroom for same or another legal jurisdiction). Common rule of thumb is that the most narrow statements have effect. So if you have a code project with a bunch of code files, and one file LICENSE.txt containing the GPLv3 licensing text and nothing else, and another file COPYING.txt that says the equivalent o "I, Jonas, claim to be the owner of creative works within this code project, and I grant anyone the rights to use and copy and modify what I control the rights over, by the legal principles of the Apache-2.0 general public license" then that project is licensed as Apache-2.0 and *not* as GPL-3. But if that same project, in addition to those two text files, also within each code file contains a statement that I, Jonas, am copyright holder and grants the rights of BSD-3, then those files are licensed as BSD-3. If nothing else in the project is copyright-protectable, then the project is dual-licensed as *either* BSD-3 *or* Apache-2.0 (but still as GPL-3 because that license only *exist* but nothing in the project has been *granted* those rules that it represents). If instead, in addition to my copyright claim and Apache-licensing of the project as a whole, the copyright holder of each and every copyright-protecable file within the project was someone else, then my claim had no effect over those files, and in reality the project would be licensed as BSD-3 (not as Apache-2.0). Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so only use my input here as inspiration but seek a lawyer if you want legal certainty. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private