Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+
Eriberto Mota writes (Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+): Now, I would like to understand why the packaging isn't a derivative work (when haven't a patch). So, I am thinking that is because Debian distributes, separately, the upstream code (orig.tar.gz) and debian.tar.xz. Is this? But, the .deb is a product of the junction of these files. So, I am confused. Can you clarify me this issue? `Derivative work' is a concept defined in copyright law so it varies by jurisdiction. But basically, X is a derivative work of Y iff the production of X involved taking (or translating or adapting) pieces of Y. Typically, the packaging files in debian/ do not contain anything tha came from the upstream source. So in themselves they are not a derivative work. But the source package as a whole, and the binary packages, _do_ of course contain the results of adapting/compiling/etc. _both_ parts of the upstream source _and_ parts of the debian/ packaging. So the source package, and the binary packages, are derivative works of both the upstream source and the Debian packaging. (With free software licences) that means that the licences of the upstream and Debian parts must be compatible, and the result is that the licence of the source package as a whole, and of the binary packages, is the `strictest' of the licences of the components. Ian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21504.59812.87744.544...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+
Thanks all for explanations. This question is clear to me now. Regards, Eriberto -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAP+dXJe=hwzz5xsvavfrqhbqwq2dblfegxlhly1fz8fmutm...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+
Charles and Ian, thanks for explanations. Now, I would like to understand why the packaging isn't a derivative work (when haven't a patch). So, I am thinking that is because Debian distributes, separately, the upstream code (orig.tar.gz) and debian.tar.xz. Is this? But, the .deb is a product of the junction of these files. So, I am confused. Can you clarify me this issue? Thanks, Eriberto 2014-08-21 19:08 GMT-03:00 Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org: Yes, sorry for not being clear: by « if combined » I meant debian/patches. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cap+dxjcawc2xmax-d9ti6tgjj7bbxqtkptgpm8pxrkw2mtt...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+
On 22/08/14 14:25, Eriberto Mota wrote: So, I am thinking that is because Debian distributes, separately, the upstream code (orig.tar.gz) and debian.tar.xz. Is this? But, the .deb is a product of the junction of these files. So, I am confused. Can you clarify me this issue? The key thing here is that each copyright holder can give you permission to do things that would normally infringe their copyright, but they cannot give you permission to do things that would normally infringe someone else's copyright. The upstream source code is a copyright-covered work owned by the upstream developers[1]. They have given permission to copy it under some license, in this case GPL-3+. The packaging is another copyright-covered work. It might be legally a derivative of the upstream source code, or it might not, depending what's in it and how you made it. If the packaging is *not* a derived work of the upstream source code, then its copyright holder is whoever did the packaging[1] and they have given permission to copy the packaging under GPL-2+. If it *is* a derived work of the upstream source code, then its copyright holders are the upstream developers *and* the packager. The upstream developers have given permission to copy their bit under GPL-3+, and the packager has given permission to copy their bit under GPL-2+. To copy it without copyright infringement[2], you must comply with both licenses simultaneously. In this case that effectively means GPL-3+, because you do not have the upstream developers' permission to do anything with their bit that the GPL-2 would allow but the GPL-3+ would not. However, if you are able to extract a smaller part of the packaging that is not derived from the upstream source - the README.Debian written by the packager might not be a derived work, for instance - then you can still copy that smaller part under GPL-2+. The resulting binary (the .deb) is a third copyright-covered work, distinct from both the upstream source code and the packaging. It is likely to be[3] a derivative work of both the upstream source code and the packaging, so again, both the upstream developer and the packager have a copyright interest in it, and when you copy the .deb you must comply with both their licenses simultaneously. In this case that effectively means GPL-3+ again. The fact that Debian puts the orig.tar.gz and the debian.tar.gz into separate files is not relevant here. Whether the packaging is a derivative work of the upstream source is a property of the content, not the distribution mechanism: you can put them in the same file and split that file apart again, and their legal status (whatever it was in the first place) is not changed by that process. S [1] or their employer/school/university/whatever [2] assuming that fair use / fair dealing does not already allow what you're doing [3] there are probably obscure situations in which the .deb somehow manages to not be a derived work, but the safe assumption is that it is -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53f7849e.8030...@debian.org
Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+
Eriberto Mota eribe...@debian.org writes: Now, I would like to understand why the packaging isn't a derivative work (when haven't a patch). The term “derived work” or “derivative work” is a term of art from copyright law. The determination of whether one work is, in this sense, derived from some particular other work, is made ultimately by a judge in a legal jurisdiction. Given that caveat, the general idea is: Work BAR is derived from work FOO if, in the determination of whoever is making the decision, work BAR was created by *copying* the (whole or part of) work FOO. Work BAR is possibly later modified a little, or extensively; but the idea is that one could trace the provenance of the work back through copies and modifications, and arrive at work FOO. So the Debian packaging work in ‘debian/’ for work FOO is generally not created by starting from a copy of FOO. Instead, the packaging work is generally created from something else; it is not a modified FOO. So if that's true, the packaging work is not a work derived from FOO. URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work -- \ “I am too firm in my consciousness of the marvelous to be ever | `\ fascinated by the mere supernatural …” —Joseph Conrad, _The | _o__) Shadow-Line_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85fvgoyx65@benfinney.id.au
Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+
2014-08-19 18:44 GMT-03:00 Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org: if your packaging work contains copyrightable parts (note that some typical files in debian directories are definitely trivial and therefore non-copyrightable), then their license need to be compatible with the upstream sources if they are combined in the same work. The GPL-2+ is compatible with the GPL-3+, because the “+” means “or (at your option) any later version”. Without that clause, the GPLv3 and the GPLv2 are not compatible. Thanks a lot for your reply Charles. But I am a bit confuse... Is the debian/ a derivative work from upstream code? If yes, must be the license GPL-3+ or not? I didn't understand the fact of the upstream use GPL-3+ and debian/ can be GPL-2+ or other because I am thinking about derivative work. Thanks! Eriberto -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAP+dXJfG4bckVf5Fu-DCXB0nftGEM==-4hif18_nwqauzrb...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+
Thanks a lot for your reply Charles. But I am a bit confuse... Is the debian/ a derivative work from upstream code? If yes, must be the license GPL-3+ or not? No, it is not a derivative work. (Except for debian/patches/ if you use that, but that's presumably not what you mean.) I didn't understand the fact of the upstream use GPL-3+ and debian/ can be GPL-2+ or other because I am thinking about derivative work. See my other mail. I think it is best to make your debian/ files MIT licenced (or some other very permissive licence). There seems to be little point making them GPL2+ if the bulk of the package is GPL3+. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21494.8605.611353.883...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+
Le Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 05:43:09PM +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit : Thanks a lot for your reply Charles. But I am a bit confuse... Is the debian/ a derivative work from upstream code? If yes, must be the license GPL-3+ or not? No, it is not a derivative work. (Except for debian/patches/ if you use that, but that's presumably not what you mean.) Yes, sorry for not being clear: by « if combined » I meant debian/patches. I agree with Ian that a permissive license is the most helpful in general. For the patches to upstream, while a permissive license will always be compatible, it may be better to use the same license as upstream, to simplify their work. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med 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: https://lists.debian.org/20140821220807.ga...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+
Charles Plessy writes (Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+): Note that the importance is compatibility. You can definitely chose a more permissive license, like CC0, MIT, etc. if you wish so. I think that best practice is to choose a very permissive licence for the Debian packaging files, where they are separate from the program itself. That means that any useful parts can be reused in different packages with different licences, and also that there is no problem if upstream relicence. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21492.51099.267239.254...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+
Hi, I have a doubt about a situation. The upstream source code is GPL3+. Packaging is a derivative work and I think that it must be GPL. So, GPL-3+, right? Or can the debian/* be GPL-2+? From FSF site[1]: - Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2? No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2. - Can someone confirm it? Thanks. Regards, Eriberto [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAP+dXJfQBBgx0Pej5r0f1Tz-H=6vLqF-YH=-knymqhso93b...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+
Le Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:15:46AM -0300, Eriberto Mota a écrit : I have a doubt about a situation. The upstream source code is GPL3+. Packaging is a derivative work and I think that it must be GPL. So, GPL-3+, right? Or can the debian/* be GPL-2+? Dear Eriberto, if your packaging work contains copyrightable parts (note that some typical files in debian directories are definitely trivial and therefore non-copyrightable), then their license need to be compatible with the upstream sources if they are combined in the same work. The GPL-2+ is compatible with the GPL-3+, because the “+” means “or (at your option) any later version”. Without that clause, the GPLv3 and the GPLv2 are not compatible. Note that the importance is compatibility. You can definitely chose a more permissive license, like CC0, MIT, etc. if you wish so. Also, for works that are not combined with upstream sources (like a manual page written from scratch for instance), you can chose any Free license you like. But I think that it is best practice to pick the same license as the upstream work in such cases, so that you have better chances to contribute it upstream instead of keeping it as a Debian-only modification. 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: https://lists.debian.org/20140819214405.gb13...@falafel.plessy.net
