Re: unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in adopted package

[Ben Finney]

Ian Jackson  writes:

> Ben Finney writes ("Re: unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright 
> in adopted package"):
> > The principle is to consider what a hypothetical future package
> > maintainer, or FTP master or recipient, will need to have to verify
> > the copyright holder does in fact grant the stated license.
> > 
> > […]
> > 
> > The important thing is that the grant be explicit, specific as to
> > which work and which license terms, and that it all be clearly in
> > writing.
>
> Do you agree that my mail exchange as found in the sympathy package is
> a good example of how to ask these questions, and how to record the
> answers ?

As to how to record the information, I would expect to find it in the
‘debian/copyright’ file, and I don't see what you're referring to at
.

So, if you can point to what you mean, I may be able to better respond :-)

-- 
 \   “Faith is the determination to remain ignorant in the face of |
  `\ all evidence that you are ignorant.” —Shaun Mason |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney

Re: unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in adopted package

[Ian Jackson]

Ben Finney writes ("Re: unknown license for package/debian/* in d/copyright in 
adopted package"):
> Ian Jackson  writes:
> > I would encourage everyone who does packaging to explictly licence
> > your debian/* with some very permissive licence (eg, MIT).
> 
> I default to grating “GPLv3 or later” for mine; often I'll change
> that to match the upstream work's license grant.
> 
> I don't see any special reason to prefer lax license grants for Debian
> packaging, so I default to copyleft.

It is often useful to copy Debian packaging snippets from one package
to another.  That requires that the packaging of the first package
have a licence which is compatible with the upstream licence of the
second.  In practice that means a permissive licence.

This benefit IMO far outweighs the risk that at some point someone
will abuse our goodwill to make Debian-format source packages out of
proprietary software.  No-one, not even evil people, would want to do
that.  In practice no-one except Debian and its free software
derivatives makes Debian-format source packages; everyone else has an
ad-hoc build script that spits out some .debs.

> The principle is to consider what a hypothetical future package
> maintainer, or FTP master or recipient, will need to have to verify the
> copyright holder does in fact grant the stated license.
> 
> I agree that having the message be cryptographically signed is not
> necessary, but it is good to have if feasible.
> 
> The important thing is that the grant be explicit, specific as to which
> work and which license terms, and that it all be clearly in writing.

Do you agree that my mail exchange as found in the sympathy package is
a good example of how to ask these questions, and how to record the
answers ?

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson    These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.