On Friday, January 30, 2026 6:04:44 AM Mountain Standard Time Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > I appreciate that upstream authors may have reasons to choose different > licensing, and am open to relicense non-packaging parts (e.g. patches). > Sometimes I proactively license patches potential for upstream adoption > same as upstream, but generally I don't - patches are often arguably > too small to be copyright-protected, or might contain contributions > from multiple authors - in short, it is simpler for me to ensure that > the packaging parts are all DFSG-free than that they are all compliant > with upstream choice of licensing, and I see no need for the packaging > part to be compliant with upstream choice of licensing.
I think it is generally best for the debian/* licensing to match the upstream licensing. Unless there is some compelling reason why it should be different (so far, I have never come across an example of such a reason), I think it should be the default behavior for Debian packaging. -- Soren Stoutner [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
