debian/copyright in case of multiple alternative licences
Hi! Apologies, if this is not the right place to ask this kind of questions on policy. However, personally, I feel that the corresponding policy section might certainly benefit from a few words of clarification, and so I guess this list is not entirely inappropriate. Here's my question: Sections 2.3, 4.5, and 12.5 of the policy state: Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright information and distribution license in the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright. distribution license, singular. But what if there more than one licence is available? I.e.: 1) If a software to be packaged (or parts of it) is distributable under multiple alternative licences, is it allowed / recommended / required to copy all in debian/copyright? More specifically: 2) If one of the alternative licences, when standing alone, would clearly not qualify the package for inclusion in the debian archives (e.g. requires a signed agreeement), is it allowed / recommended / required to drop this particular license alternative? Also: 3) If a part of a package is distributable under multiple alternative licences, but one of these licences, when standing alone, conflicts with the licensing of the other parts of the package(*), is it allowed / recommended / required to drop this particular license alternative? While at it: 4) If the copyright holder of a software packaged for debian decides to grant additional licensing alternatives, retroactively, after the package has already entered the archives. Does this mean the package should / must be updated to include this additional licence alternative(s)? Real world example that prompted the question: A package is licenced *almost* entirely under GPL2+. It includes one small Qt- add-on library, which is copied with some modifications from a Qt-Solutions library (Actually this library is compiled / linked against, on MS Windows, only). This small library allows distribution under a) Qt commercial licence, b) LGPL 2.1 with Qt LPGL exception (**), c) GPL 3.0. Thanks! Thomas (*): This could be a problem in either direction: Either this licence alternative does not allow the kind of usage that is applicable in the package, or the licence of the remainder of the package prohibits reliance on code under this licence alternative. (**): Essentially, the exception allows copying of certain trivial parts under *any* licence terms. Usage in the package in question clearly exceeds what is covered by the exception. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: debian/copyright in case of multiple alternative licences
Hi Thomas, On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 03:19:59PM +0100, Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote: Here's my question: Sections 2.3, 4.5, and 12.5 of the policy state: Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright information and distribution license in the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright. distribution license, singular. But what if there more than one licence is available? It should be distribution license(s), because many packages have different licenses for different files in the packages, and some even have alternative licenses for the same files. I.e.: 1) If a software to be packaged (or parts of it) is distributable under multiple alternative licences, is it allowed / recommended / required to copy all in debian/copyright? I understand its copyright information and distribution license(s) as including all licenses, so that the user can still choose between the alternative licenses. The packager should not choose for the user. More specifically: 2) If one of the alternative licences, when standing alone, would clearly not qualify the package for inclusion in the debian archives (e.g. requires a signed agreeement), is it allowed / recommended / required to drop this particular license alternative? Same here, I understand its copyright information and distribution license(s) as including all licenses, not selecting only the DFSG-compliant licenses. Also: 3) If a part of a package is distributable under multiple alternative licences, but one of these licences, when standing alone, conflicts with the licensing of the other parts of the package(*), is it allowed / recommended / required to drop this particular license alternative? And same here, I understand its copyright information and distribution license(s) as including all licenses, not selecting only the non-conflicting license combinations. But obviously if some license combinations conflict, then it would be helpful for the user to mention that in the copyright file. While at it: 4) If the copyright holder of a software packaged for debian decides to grant additional licensing alternatives, retroactively, after the package has already entered the archives. Does this mean the package should / must be updated to include this additional licence alternative(s)? It is not a license violation that the package is continued to be distributed under the original licenses. It is however good to add the additionally granted license as part of normal maintenance of the package, to reflect the current available licenses. Real world example that prompted the question: A package is licenced *almost* entirely under GPL2+. It includes one small Qt- add-on library, which is copied with some modifications from a Qt-Solutions library (Actually this library is compiled / linked against, on MS Windows, only). This small library allows distribution under a) Qt commercial licence, b) LGPL 2.1 with Qt LPGL exception (**), c) GPL 3.0. To be more precise, this is the real world example you described: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=19;bug=689982 Linked on MS Windows only or not, the file is in the source package, so its copyright information and distribution license(s) are part of the copyright information and distribution license(s) of the package. (In case of non-free files linked on MS Windows only, repackaging the upstream tarball to remove the non-free source code files can be a solution to allow the package in Debian main.) (*): This could be a problem in either direction: Either this licence alternative does not allow the kind of usage that is applicable in the package, or the licence of the remainder of the package prohibits reliance on code under this licence alternative. I agree that this could be a problem. At least one combination of licenses must not conflict to allow the package to be distributed via Debian. (**): Essentially, the exception allows copying of certain trivial parts under *any* licence terms. Usage in the package in question clearly exceeds what is covered by the exception. Exceeds ? Sounds like a problem, but maybe I'm misunderstanding this. Anyhow, I'm happy that you ask around for more information about how to deal with multiple licenses and how to write a good debian/copyright file. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121103152818.ga20...@master.debian.org
Re: debian/copyright in case of multiple alternative licences
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012, Bart Martens wrote: I understand its copyright information and distribution license(s) as including all licenses, so that the user can still choose between the alternative licenses. The packager should not choose for the user. Sometimes we have to. The source may be distributed with license choices we cannot use for the binary packages, because of restrictions caused by linking to libraries, or by the DFSG. IMO, debian/copyright should reflect the licenses being used to distribute the binary and source packages *by Debian*. This is a somewhat uncommon case, though. And I don't think many of us are updating GPLv2 or later licenses to GPLv3 in debian/copyright when linking to something ends up resulting in a GPLv3 application, for example. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121103161422.ga32...@khazad-dum.debian.net
FYI: Requested update of the dbnpolicy group
The dbnpolicy group, which is used to control access to the Git repository used to maintain debian-policy, was missing both aba and plessy. I've just submitted an RT ticket to DSA requesting that it be updated. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r4oabir5@windlord.stanford.edu
Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 691352 ...
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was r...@debian.org). limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit currently set to 'package':'debian-policy' usertags 691352 = informative There were no usertags set. Usertags are now: informative. tags 691352 = pending Bug #691352 [debian-policy] Typo in 8.6.4 (The shlibs system) Added tag(s) pending. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 691352: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=691352 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.c.135198192116505.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#691352: Typo in 8.6.4 (The shlibs system)
Raúl Benencia r...@kalgan.cc writes: Package: debian-policy Version: 3.9.4.0 Severity: minor At the beginning, when the policy says The shlibs system is an simpler alternative. s/an/a Thanks, fixed for the next release. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fw4q9v09@windlord.stanford.edu
