Hi Soren, Quoting Soren Stoutner (2026-02-02 20:04:57) > On Monday, February 2, 2026 11:43:34 AM Mountain Standard Time Jonas > Smedegaard wrote: > > Related to that, I now (since yesterday) add the following section to > > the debian/copyright file of packages that I maintain: > > > > Files: debian/patches/* > > Copyright: None > > License: None > > Comment: > > Patches are generally assumed not copyright-protected by default. > > Please list any patch with copyright claims separately. > > As I just wrote in a separate email, I disagree strongly with the > idea that Debian packaging is not copyrightable. I do not think that > any packages with the above debian/copyright entry should be allowed > in Debian.
I read your previous email and I fully agree with you on that, but I disagree with your conclusion (second sentence of your above). For the record: I disagree strongly with the idea that Debian packaging is *in general* is not copyrightable. The reason I disagree with your conclusion has to do with a work consisting of multiple parts, where some parts may be both easily identifiable and also not in itself be copyrightable. Debian packaging consist of such a subset, which has a third feature of being potentially upstreamable: patches to upstream source. (please see my response to Russ for more details on that reasoning) Initially I talked about Debian packaging, but then I shifted to talk more narrowly about the subset of "debian/patches*", and that is what you quoted. Your position I fully agree with, but I am unsure if you really mean that it holds true also for debian/patches as a subset on its own - and I suspect that I would disagree with such a position. Do you insist so very strongly that *patches* are not copyrightable? - Jonas -- * 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
signature.asc
Description: signature
