Re: incompatible licenses in the debian directory
Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes: So, the way *I* see this is so long as the GPL code isn't being put into a combined work with anything (e.g. GPL'd patches), it *should* be OK. Unfortunately, GPLv3 considers build scripts (thus, d/rules plus the input for the declarative dh* commands, plus d/control which is parsed by some, etc.) to be part of the “complete” source code. This means that even the previous maintainer was unable to legally upload the package with debian/* being GPLv3, unless he added an exception. Make out of that, consequences-wise, whatever you want… just saying… there have been precedences of upstream being forced to relicence because they have distributed something they couldn’t under the choices they made themselves. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130927t150424-...@post.gmane.org
Re: incompatible licenses in the debian directory
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 01:06:27PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes: So, the way *I* see this is so long as the GPL code isn't being put into a combined work with anything (e.g. GPL'd patches), it *should* be OK. Unfortunately, GPLv3 considers build scripts (thus, d/rules plus the input for the declarative dh* commands, plus d/control which is parsed by some, etc.) to be part of the “complete” source code. This means that even the previous maintainer was unable to legally upload the package with debian/* being GPLv3, unless he added an exception. This is a GPL restriction. Since the upstream code isn't GPL, why are you using a GPL argument about build scripts? -- in theory this would apply to build scripts for the GPLv3'd debian/* files, but there are none that I know of :) Make out of that, consequences-wise, whatever you want… just saying… there have been precedences of upstream being forced to relicence because they have distributed something they couldn’t under the choices they made themselves. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130927t150424-...@post.gmane.org -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: incompatible licenses in the debian directory
Given the lack of specific mention of a different license for debian/* in d/copyright, I think it's fair to say that debian/* was licensed under CPL, whether intended or not. Still, upstream has changed to EPL, and Soeren has refused to relicense his work under EPL (and has offered GPL-3 as an alternative). I might be able to reuse the previous work under CPL, but I'd rather not have a scattering of files in debian under a now-obscure license. At this point, I've worked on one of the packages to remove all of the previous copyrightable work, except for d/changelog which is left under GPL-3. Unless someone corrects me, it seems mostly harmless to leave the changelog under GPL-3. On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote: On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 01:06:27PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Paul Tagliamonte paultag at debian.org writes: So, the way *I* see this is so long as the GPL code isn't being put into a combined work with anything (e.g. GPL'd patches), it *should* be OK. Unfortunately, GPLv3 considers build scripts (thus, d/rules plus the input for the declarative dh* commands, plus d/control which is parsed by some, etc.) to be part of the “complete” source code. This means that even the previous maintainer was unable to legally upload the package with debian/* being GPLv3, unless he added an exception. This is a GPL restriction. Since the upstream code isn't GPL, why are you using a GPL argument about build scripts? -- in theory this would apply to build scripts for the GPLv3'd debian/* files, but there are none that I know of :) Make out of that, consequences-wise, whatever you want… just saying… there have been precedences of upstream being forced to relicence because they have distributed something they couldn’t under the choices they made themselves. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130927t150424-...@post.gmane.org -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAJLyeTkjoU7XDskc_Sfzk+Jy2xe4xsy6iU�pYfr=_yhns...@mail.gmail.com
Re: incompatible licenses in the debian directory
Paul Tagliamonte dixit: This is a GPL restriction. Since the upstream code isn't GPL, why are you using a GPL argument about build scripts? -- in theory this would apply to build scripts for the GPLv3'd debian/* files, but there are none that Hm unsure. It really depends on how far you acknowledge the virality of the GPL – Debian, AFAIK, tends to go more with the FSF’s extreme interpretation… But if the new maintainer is willing to completely remove the old stuff that’s probably the best outcome, considering the old maintainer is unwilling to cooperate. (Personally I think debian/ should be permissive, especially if there’s not too much “magic” in it… and others even think there should be no magic in it…) bye, //mirabilos -- gcc ncal.c: In function 'parsemonth': warning: comparison between pointer and integer • mirabilos ↑ hab da „in function parselmouth“ gelesen Natureshadow ICH AUCH! • Natureshadow Ich hab gerade gedacht Häh? Wie, hab da parselmouth gelesen ... steht da doch auch :o? -- too much fanfic… -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1309271522590.30...@herc.mirbsd.org
Re: incompatible licenses in the debian directory
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 03:24:58PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Hm unsure. It really depends on how far you acknowledge the virality of the GPL – Debian, AFAIK, tends to go more with the FSF’s extreme interpretation… I don't think my view is out of line with the FSF's. This applies to source code for the covered work. The covered work *is* the build-script in this case. The upstream code is EPL, which has no clause that requires the build-scripts to be under a compatable license. In addition, I don't think that using the build-scripts creates a derivative work, so I don't think the resulting work would be GPL'd just because of the build scripts. As such, I don't see a problem, unless someone points out something I've overlooked here. But if the new maintainer is willing to completely remove the old stuff that’s probably the best outcome, considering the old maintainer is unwilling to cooperate. Perhaps, but I don't think it's a problem, so long as the debian/patches are licensed EPL or more permissive. There are oodles of packages that have GPL-3+'d debian/* with a non-GPL upstream license. (Personally I think debian/ should be permissive, especially if there’s not too much “magic” in it… and others even think there should be no magic in it…) I don't disagree, but I don't think this is inherently an issue. bye, //mirabilos Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: incompatible licenses in the debian directory
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:18:58AM -0400, Miles Lubin wrote: Dear debian-legalers, Yo, Miles! - The debian directory had no explicit license mentioned in the copyright file. It was pointed out by Paul Tagliamonte that the Oh yes, I remember this. previous maintainer(s) must agree to the change in license. - Soeren Sonnenburg, the previous maintainer, has insisted that his work be licensed under GPLv3 exclusively. :\ What's the best way to resolve this issue? In general I see two different classes of files in the debian directory as they might relate to the license incompatibility. 1) Debian helper files (rules, watch, control, copyright, changelog) which are not part of the distributed package. 2) Patches, manpages, etc. which are part of the distributed package. So, the way *I* see this is so long as the GPL code isn't being put into a combined work with anything (e.g. GPL'd patches), it *should* be OK. I couldn't imagine the case to be made against shipping CC-BY images in a GPL source package, so I don't see why we can't have different conflicting licenses in the same tarball (unless the license stipulates such, in which case, I'm not sure of the DFSG freeness, see point 9) It's a skitch hazy, but I don't think there's an issue with distributing CC-BY and GPL code in the same tarball -- the only issue is this *MAY* result in GPL issues if *upstream* is GPL, if you've checked out some of the CDDL build-scripts + GPL'd source code flames. I've not looked into the details of those issues, however, so I couldn't speak to them. Hopefully you can find a good solution! Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: incompatible licenses in the debian directory
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:37:12AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: It's a skitch hazy, but I don't think there's an issue with distributing CC-BY and GPL code in the same tarball -- the only issue is this *MAY* result in GPL issues if *upstream* is GPL, if you've checked out some of the CDDL build-scripts + GPL'd source code flames. Strike this bit. It's redundant and I've not had enough coffee, so you should strike it and I should get coffee because it's redundant. (Sorry y'all :) ) Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: incompatible licenses in the debian directory
There is something implicit in paultag's mail, I'll try to make it explicit. The new license must not be used for any of the existing files, unless there is a complete rewrite. For example, debian/changelog is likely to get new copyrightable content and having that under the two licenses would not be distributable. You could work around that by splitting the file into changelog and changelog.old though. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6E784qja3Hx-=z4dbp1ccw-yujhmjfo8wyffm-pwcm...@mail.gmail.com
Re: incompatible licenses in the debian directory
Le Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:18:58AM -0400, Miles Lubin a écrit : Here's the issue: - Since the last upload, upstream has switched from the CPL (Common Public License) to the EPL (Eclipse Public License). - The debian directory had no explicit license mentioned in the copyright file. It was pointed out by Paul Tagliamonte that the previous maintainer(s) must agree to the change in license. - Soeren Sonnenburg, the previous maintainer, has insisted that his work be licensed under GPLv3 exclusively. - EPL and GPLv3 are incompatible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License), but the extent to which they are incompatible is not clear to me. Hi Miles, Soeren and everybody, if Soeren did not indicate a license for his work in the Debian directory (to the extent that it is copyrightable), I think that the general assumption that it is under the same license as the Upstream work, in particular for the patches (which is why there is no License field in DEP 3, the Patch Tagging Guidelines). The CPL is also listed as incompatible with the GPL on FSF's website, so the patches definitely were not GPL-licensed. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CommonPublicLicense10 For the manpage: it does not contain a copyright or a license statement, and the Debian copyright file mentions If not stated otherwise Copyright: (C) 2000-2003, 2005-2008 International Business Machines Corporation and others. License: Common Public License Version 1.0 In any case, it would be good to submit the manpage Upstream, and the most cooperative way would be to use the same license as Upstream. Integrating the manpage upstream reduces the packager's load, and shares the work beyond Debian. Soeren, are you sure you would like this manpage to be licensed under terms that may be not welcome Upstream ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130925225037.ga3...@falafel.plessy.net
