On Feb 2, 2026 14:32, Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Quoting Gerardo Ballabio (2026-02-02 13:04:49)
> > If the packaging and the upstream source have different licenses, I
> > wonder what is the license on the resulting package -- both source and
> > binary?
>
> Some projects in Debian already without problems involve multiple
> licenses, e.g. one license for code to be compiled together, maybe
> another for components linkable with independently compiled code, and
> maybe a third for some documentation.
>
> I am not talking about is copyleft-licensing something which is patched
> into upstream-licensed code and therefore causing Debian to
> redistribute upstream works relicensed compared to their own licensing.
> I am only talking about copyleft-licensing non-upstream-affecting
> packaging parts.
>
> I am also not talking about things not copyright-protectable: We all
> claim copyright for packaging and license that copyright-claimed stuff,
> so any discussion of whether those copyright claims are bogus and what
> problems such bogus claims might cause, is orthogonal to the choice of
> license.
>
> My question is also not whether *you* should copyleft-license *your*
> contributions to Debian. I am only asking if you would prefer that
> copyleft-licensed contributions was unacceptable in Debian.
*I* prefer to use the same license as upstream, I often advise to do the same,
but I have no problem with you choosing GPL license for your packaging if you
prefer, as long as you understand what you're doing (and I believe you do).
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
