On Tuesday, February 3, 2026 6:16:46 AM Mountain Standard Time Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > 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?
Not all patches are the same. I agree that there are some that would not pass the copyrightable test. But, in general, I strongly believe that *most* patches are copyrightable because they, generally, require some form of creative work. -- Soren Stoutner [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
