Santiago Vila writes ("hello: packaging improvements: DEP-5, multiarch, use
Breaks, ..."):
> When switching to DEP5, I also would like to state that the debian/*
> files are in the public domain. Have those files diverged enough from
> their very first original version that I can do that?
>
> I think so, but I'm Cc:ing Ian to be sure (in fact, I approached him
> in Portland about this, maybe he remembers, but then I forgot to ask
> him in a more "official" way, he suggested that a gpg-signed email
> from him saying it's ok would be enough).
Normally I am a very strong proponent of copyleft, but my view is that
Debian packaging files ought always to be permissively licenced.
This is because it's often useful to copy them about between different
packages, perhaps ones with different licences. And the value of
copylefting Debian packaging, in terms of assuring the freedom of
users etc., is quite limited.
So, yes, please consider anything I wrote in debian/ (but not
necessarily d/patches or equivalent, obviously) as very permissively
licenced: CC0 or MIT, at your option, or public domain in
jurisdictionx with such a concept.
Feel free to reference this mail anywhere that seems appropriate.
> However, this does not mean at all that I can't point my git repo to
> your fork and cherry-pick from it. It just means I don't like the MR
> workflow and I also don't think it should be forced on maintainers by
> "group pressure".
The review-in-forge MR workflow has both advantages and disadvantages.
Notably, gitlab is a giant pile of poo[1]. It's such a chame we're
not using forgejo.
So from my point of view your position is very reasonable.
Regards,
Ian.
[1] References available on request.
--
Ian Jackson <[email protected]> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
