License requiring to reproduce copyrights in binary distributions.
Dear all, It appeared in various discussions about either DEP5 or the NEW queue that licenses vary in their requirement for reproducing the authors copyrights in binary distributions. In order to start clarifying the situation, I propose to list for the most common licenses when they require to reproduce copyright statements. The final goal is to help packagers to keep the debian/copyright file simple while respecting license terms. I propose to make this list on the Debian wiki, and created a draft page: http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightNotices For the moment, the list has three easy entries as example: - The WTFPL, that allows everything, therefore to not cite copyrights anywhere. - The GPL, that assumes that the source is always available, and therefore does not have special requirements for binary distributions. - The Expat license, that requires copyright notices to be included in all copies or substantial portions of the software, and therefore somewhere, typically debian/copyright, in binary distributions. If you are intersted, you are welcome to join this documentation effort that will help Debian to better understand what is the minimal requirement for copyright documentation. 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
Re: License requiring to reproduce copyrights in binary distributions.
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 23:57:28 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: Dear all, [...] I propose to make this list on the Debian wiki, and created a draft page: http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightNotices Could you please explicitly state (in the wiki page itself) the license under which the wiki page is released? Could you please do that quickly, before the number of contributors becomes too large and re-licensing becomes a pain? Suggested license for the wiki page: GNU GPL v2 or Expat license, as you prefer. I personally think that relying on implicit permission to modify on wiki sites is a bad practice, that should be avoided whenever possible. I hope this helps. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpnEBFVd6Z3i.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: License requiring to reproduce copyrights in binary distributions.
Le Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 07:03:03PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 23:57:28 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightNotices Could you please explicitly state (in the wiki page itself) the license under which the wiki page is released? All my contributions on this wiki can be treated as if they were in the public domain, as stated on my personal page: http://wiki.debian.org/CharlesPlessy For this page, since the discussion on the wiki relicensing has not beared fruits yet, I would something permissive that would not hinder the work or our wiki admins when they will sort licencing issues out. Also, since this page stems from the impression that it is sometimes impractical to reproduce all copyright statements, I would like to pick one that allows to not do so. I know that people on this list object on license proliferation, but may I suggest the BOLA license, that is a politically correct version of the WTFPL? http://blitiri.com.ar/p/bola/ 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
Does the ISC license require to reproduce copyrights in debian/copyright ?
Le Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 11:57:28PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : It appeared in various discussions about either DEP5 or the NEW queue that licenses vary in their requirement for reproducing the authors copyrights in binary distributions. In order to start clarifying the situation, I propose to list for the most common licenses when they require to reproduce copyright statements. The final goal is to help packagers to keep the debian/copyright file simple while respecting license terms. I propose to make this list on the Debian wiki, and created a draft page: http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightNotices Dear all, let's start with the Internet Software Consortium license: Copyright © 2004-2009 by Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. (ISC) Copyright © 1995-2003 by Internet Software Consortium Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS AND ISC DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL ISC BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. (from ‘https://www.isc.org/software/license’) Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a “copy”? If yes, it seems that the copyright notice should be reproduced in our binary packages, typically in debian/copyright. But let's remember that in the case of works distributed under the terms of the GPL, we consider that the binary packages are only one piece of a bigger cake, that includes the source package. In that case, the ISC license would also be satisfied if debian/copyright would not contain the copyright notice. What is your opinion? 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
