Am 31.01.26 um 09:19 schrieb Arto Jantunen:
Jonathan Carter <[email protected]> writes:
I agree with others that matching the package licensing is reasonable, although
as we often see, bigger and larger
packages tend to have a mixture of licenses, in which case we typically choose
the most free license for the package.
Occasionally, I run into problems with more advanced packages, and then find
that Arch Linux of Gentoo have found a good
solution to it, and I use it. When I've already spent some hours to a packaging
solution in Debian, I want it to be
available as widely as possible to others in the same manner with as little
friction as possible. So, I think if I had
to default on something else that "same as packaging", I'd use something like
CC0 or something that is equally
permissive.
I recently thought about this specific problem for reasons I can't now
remember, and arrived at the conclusion that CC0 is probably the best
license one can choose for packaging.
For the most part the packaging is unlikely to be copyrightable anyway
^^ This.
so assigning a license that has restrictions only makes things harder
for the friendly folks who care about license compatibility and are
unwilling to unilaterally decide that copyright doesn't apply.
Claiming copyright for something that is not copyright-able and then
even putting restrictions on its use can be legally dangerous. Although
it is a rare occurence, court cases have been lost in the past with
expensive consequences for the person who tried to put restrictions on
content that was - for whatever reason - part of the commons/public
domain/not copyrightable.
Potentially making things difficult for good free software citizens
without in any way affecting the not so friendly folks seems
counterproductive to me.
