Re: License of Debian-specific parts in packages, generally and in particular
Frank Küster wrote:
Hi,
in particular, tetex-base has a woeful copyright file (#218105), and
while I'm trying to resolve this, I came across the fact that some of
the Debian-specific code (maintainer scripts, templates,...) does
not have a license statement. The maintainer scripts don't even have a
proper copyright statement, i.e. one has to guess from debian/changelog
who has contributed what.
That's no good. Tetex-base is one of the most infamously bad cases, of
course.
More generally, I found out that this is the case for many packages
(just a random pick: emacs21{-common}, kdebase-bin, scigraphica) have
the same deficiencies. An example for a good package is the xfree
Packages; furthermore, in xfree86-common/copyright, the copyright for
all Debian-specific contributions is assigned to SPI.
Therefore, I would like to raise some questions. If they have been
discussed before, please give me a pointer.
1. Shouldn't we add a note to the Policy (or the Developer's Reference)
that there should be a license statement for the Debian-specific
parts in debian/copyright? I think we should, and it should be a
must directive post-sarge.
Yes. However, normally, the Debian-specific parts should be licensed under
the same license as the rest of the package, in which case little
additional information is required in debian/copyright -- just the
copyright statements of the creators of the Debian-specific parts, added to
the list of copyright holders granting the license.
2. Should we encourage maintainers and contributors to assign the
copyright to SPI, as the x people did?
That has to be done in hard copy on signed documents in the US, unless I'm
very much mistaken. It's probably not worth encouraging people to do
that. :-P
3. Is there any advice on whether to put the debian-specific part under
the same license as the upstream work, or whether this does not
matter?
If the debian-specific parts might get integrated upstream (patches, for
instance), it's certainly advisable to put them under the same license.
If they won't, I guess it doesn't *really* matter; it's still important that
the license be appropriately compatible, though.
4. How should we proceed with old contributions? Especially if
maintainers have frequently changed, or complex patches from the BTS
have been applied, it might be hard to find out all the copyright
holders.
I think one can assume that anybody contributing code [1] to a Debian
package is willing to put it under a DFSG-free license, but one
cannot guess at all which license this should be. Therefore a
transition strategy could be made that would allow old code with
unknown or unreachable authors in the package if it is marked a such,
but require a rewrite if substantial changes have to be made anyway.
I would generally assume the following:
* if the authors are listed in debian/copyright as holding a copyright in
part of the work, and granting the appropriate license, everything is fine.
* if they're listed somewhere else as doing so, that needs to be in
debian/copyright.
* if the work is in the public domain, a statement to that effect in
debian/copyright is needed.
* otherwise, the code is not licensed and should be taken out as soon as a
reasonable replacement can be made
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Re: License of Debian-specific parts in packages, generally and in particular
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:55:47PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
More generally, I found out that this is the case for many packages
(just a random pick: emacs21{-common}, kdebase-bin, scigraphica) have
the same deficiencies. An example for a good package is the xfree
Packages;
Does this really surprise you? :)
/me dreads what is sure to befall him now that he has indulged in this
hubris
--
G. Branden Robinson| Arguments, like men, are often
Debian GNU/Linux | pretenders.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Plato
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
License of Debian-specific parts in packages, generally and in particular
Hi,
in particular, tetex-base has a woeful copyright file (#218105), and
while I'm trying to resolve this, I came across the fact that some of
the Debian-specific code (maintainer scripts, templates,...) does
not have a license statement. The maintainer scripts don't even have a
proper copyright statement, i.e. one has to guess from debian/changelog
who has contributed what.
More generally, I found out that this is the case for many packages
(just a random pick: emacs21{-common}, kdebase-bin, scigraphica) have
the same deficiencies. An example for a good package is the xfree
Packages; furthermore, in xfree86-common/copyright, the copyright for
all Debian-specific contributions is assigned to SPI.
Therefore, I would like to raise some questions. If they have been
discussed before, please give me a pointer.
1. Shouldn't we add a note to the Policy (or the Developer's Reference)
that there should be a license statement for the Debian-specific
parts in debian/copyright? I think we should, and it should be a
must directive post-sarge.
2. Should we encourage maintainers and contributors to assign the
copyright to SPI, as the x people did?
3. Is there any advice on whether to put the debian-specific part under
the same license as the upstream work, or whether this does not
matter?
4. How should we proceed with old contributions? Especially if
maintainers have frequently changed, or complex patches from the BTS
have been applied, it might be hard to find out all the copyright
holders.
I think one can assume that anybody contributing code [1] to a Debian
package is willing to put it under a DFSG-free license, but one
cannot guess at all which license this should be. Therefore a
transition strategy could be made that would allow old code with
unknown or unreachable authors in the package if it is marked a such,
but require a rewrite if substantial changes have to be made anyway.
Regards, Frank
[1] at least if the code is complex enough to warrant a copyright at all.
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Re: License of Debian-specific parts in packages, generally and in particular
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:55:47PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote: 1. Shouldn't we add a note to the Policy (or the Developer's Reference) that there should be a license statement for the Debian-specific parts in debian/copyright? I think we should, and it should be a must directive post-sarge. More to the point it should have been done, for any packages that aren't trivial. 2. Should we encourage maintainers and contributors to assign the copyright to SPI, as the x people did? No, SPI is useless. 3. Is there any advice on whether to put the debian-specific part under the same license as the upstream work, or whether this does not matter? That would depend on the license. MIT if unsure. 4. How should we proceed with old contributions? Especially if maintainers have frequently changed, or complex patches from the BTS have been applied, it might be hard to find out all the copyright holders. We can't even find all the current maintainers. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
