On Fri, 2024-01-05 at 22:31 -0800, Ross Vandegrift wrote: > Imagine I take some code from a freely licensed reference implementation and > customize it. The result is a derived work. But this embedding isn't > removable - the reference implementation shouldn't accept changes to integrate > it into a specific project.
The reference implementation should be flexible enough to work as a library imported/loaded/linked by any project that wants to use it. If it isn't then that is an issue that should be fixed upstream. Once it is then the removal can happen and Debian can use depends. > It'd be reasonable to include the original license and copyright statements. Right. > If I do, Debian requires packagers to describe the license and copyright on > those embedded license/copyright files. And I'm puzzled about how to do that > best. Same as for any other file in the source package, list in the debian/copyright which files have which copyrights and licenses. > Maybe the answer is to repack it away? But that seems weird. It's freely > redistributable, and that'd be *obscuring* license/copyright details. We > usually like that. :) Repacking it away sounds like removing it from the source package, which would mean it could no longer be used, or never was used, in both cases there isn't any point having it in the upstream VCS then. > The same issue arises for disabled conveience copies. The wiki suggests > Files-Excluded, but also alternatives that involve Debian redistributing the > convenience copy (and so probably it's license/copyright files) in source > packages. Unless there are DFSG or size reasons to remove the unused copy, generally Debian suggests either forwarding the removal upstream, or keeping the unused copy, not repacking to remove the copy. Some folks repack anyway to avoid the work needed documenting copyrights and licenses, although there are tools to automate that process now. https://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReviewTools > (I realize not much hangs on this - but cme/licensecheck raised the issue to > me. I can ignore it, but also got curious and tried to figure out what to > do.) What issue did it print? Which package/code is this about BTW? -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
