Ben Finney writes ("Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts"):
> For free software, this forum normally recommends that the Debian
> packaging copyright holders should choose to grant the same license to
> the Debian packaging files as the general license for the upstream work.I disagree both with this recommendation, and with the assertion that we normally recommend using the same licence for Debian packaging as upstream use for the program. Last time this particular question came up I wrote[1]: 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. Charles Plessey agreed with me on this point and no-one disagreed. So I would recommend that Debian packaging (debian/rules, debhelper setup, etc.) should be licenced by the Debian packager under MIT (or perhaps 2-clause BSD or similar). Thanks, Ian. https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/08/msg00059.html -- 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/21786.41224.779771.189...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
