Short summary, how about a new `Packaging:` field in machine-readable `debian/copyright` files?
[My answer below was proof-read by MS Copilot] Le Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 02:04:44PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
When I package a project for inclusion into Debian, I commonly license my packaging work using a copyleft license¹.
What triggers me in asking this is that, as part of a recent NEW queue processing, this pattern of mine was noticed and questioned.
My experience is almost the opposite: when I generate a new package using automated scripts, I don’t want to claim copyright on the packaging. Unfortunately, this has been considered mandatory—the previous team rejected packages without explicit license statements for files under debian/. To comply, many maintainers simply reuse the upstream license for debian/*, which becomes messy when upstream later relicenses (common in some ecosystems). And as Matthias noted, using a different license for packaging plus the machine‑readable format adds overhead whenever we introduce new upstream patches. It would help to have a default mechanism for maintainers who prefer to waive as much copyright as possible without spending time hand‑editing debian/copyright. Perhaps we could define a standard Comment or a new Packaging field in the machine‑readable format pointing to a Debian‑hosted explanation: that most packaging work is not copyrightable, that some files may carry upstream copyright, and that maintainers otherwise place their contributions in the public domain (or equivalent). Have a nice day, Charles
