Quoting Charles Plessy (2026-01-31 10:33:06) > 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.
If I understand you correctly, you seek to permit most possible users to do most possible with your contributions, including their chooing to share their further development without such freedoms¹ I see no problem with that preference of licensing: As Jonathan mentions, then simply aim as relaxed as possible, e.g. license your contributions as CC0. > 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). I see no need for special fields to express this. The expression, using existing lingo, is this: Files: debian/* Copyright: Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> License: CC0 Yes, you might argue that putting your name there is problematic, but what is says is *who* stated that they want to waive most possible rights. The problem I raise - which so far I am alone in having concerns over, it seems - is that I want to share my contributions with anyone that values DFSG. I want to respect upstream eventually different choice by licensing anything that is extending on their work under their terms, but I have no desire for embracing their terms for creative works not built upon theirs. - Jonas ¹ As you no doubt know already, but mentioning in case others less well versed in this stumbled upon my post as well: Copyleft is essentially about ensuring future commitment to protecting the four freedoms of Free software. -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
