Bug#1068129: ITP: redict - Licensing questions

2024-05-04 Thread Maytham Alsudany
Hi Andrea,

On Sun, 2024-04-21 at 11:38 +0200, Andrea Pappacoda wrote:
> Hi Maytham, thanks for accepting my request to join the Redict team!
> 
> I've started taking a look at the work you've done, and I have a few
> questions regarding the debian/copyright file you wrote. I've noticed
> that you've marked all the files as LGPL-3.0-only, but I'm not sure
> that's correct.
[..]
> (Also, the Source field should say "https://codeberg.org/redict/redict";,
> but that's a pretty minor issue).
> 
> Let me know what you think! Bye :)

Thanks for the feedback! I've fixed these problems, and I'd appreciate if you'd
have a quick look at both redict and hiredict's new d/copyright files.

Kind regards,
Maytham


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Bug#1068129: ITP: redict - Licensing questions

2024-04-21 Thread Drew DeVault
On Sun Apr 21, 2024 at 11:38 AM CEST, Andrea Pappacoda wrote:
> For example, I think that the following file block:
>
> Files: *
> Copyright:
>  2006-2014 Salvatore Sanfilippo 
>  2024 Redict contributors
> License: LGPL-3.0-only
>
> should instead look something like:
>
> Files: *
> Copyright:
>  2006-2014 Salvatore Sanfilippo 
>  2024 Redict contributors
> License: LGPL-3.0-only and BSD-3-Clause

Indeed it should be LGPL-3.0-only and BSD-3-Clause.

Thanks for clarifying that!


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Bug#1068129: ITP: redict - Licensing questions

2024-04-21 Thread Andrea Pappacoda
(Ccing Drew since he's way more knowledgeable of me - great new post
btw!)

Hi Maytham, thanks for accepting my request to join the Redict team!

I've started taking a look at the work you've done, and I have a few
questions regarding the debian/copyright file you wrote. I've noticed
that you've marked all the files as LGPL-3.0-only, but I'm not sure
that's correct.

Most Redict files come from Redis 7.2.4, where they were licensed under
the BSD-3-Clause license. While Redict is distributed under the
LGPL-3.0-only, the files themselves still carry the original copyright
properties, thus the d/copyright file should list them as licensed under
the BSD-3-Clause, or under both the old and new license. Or at least,
that's my understanding of how these things work.

For example, I think that the following file block:

Files: *
Copyright:
 2006-2014 Salvatore Sanfilippo 
 2024 Redict contributors
License: LGPL-3.0-only

should instead look something like:

Files: *
Copyright:
 2006-2014 Salvatore Sanfilippo 
 2024 Redict contributors
License: LGPL-3.0-only and BSD-3-Clause

This is also one of the few cases where I think that using the top-level
optional License field is appropriate. I'd use it to indicate that,
while the individual files have historically been licensed under the
BSD-3-Clause, Redict itself is distributed under the LGPL-3.0-only:

Format: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
Upstream-Contact: Drew DeVault 
Upstream-Name: redict
Source: https://redict.io
License: LGPL-3.0-only

(Also, the Source field should say "https://codeberg.org/redict/redict";,
but that's a pretty minor issue).

Let me know what you think! Bye :)