Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2013-01-14 13:41:08) > Am 14.01.2013 12:07, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > > I agree that debian/copyright is the best place to cover effective > > licensing, but I disagree that we whould do it before it is defined > > as the purpose of that file to cover *both* source and effective > > licensing. > > But then, TTBOMK the effective license of a library does not only > depend on the licenses of the source files it is composed of. For > example, using a LGPL-2+ licensed library in software that is > Apache-licensed will turn the effective license of said library to > LGPL-3, because LGPL-2 is incompatible.
Yes - I did not mean to say that it was as simple as gathering together and look at all involved licenses - it is required also to look at *how* those licenses are used - e.g. which parts are linked together and which parts are maybe used only for commandline tools or internally during build for regression tests. > However, I am afraid these are some corner cases that we simply cannot > cover in debian/copyright. I agree that *current* policy for debian/copyright a) do not *require* documenting reasoning of effects of our compiling binary packages from the sources that we have been granted license to freely use, and therefore it is unreliable to b) *maintain* such reasoning - because each change to each explicit or implicit build-dependency may rewuire new reasoning. I do expect, however, a *future* policy which requires debian/copyright be machine-readable. ...and I do imagine then an even more distant future policy additionally requiring reasoned effective licensing be included in debian/copyright. Today the burden of reasoning effective licensing is totally on users of those binary packages - including other Debian packages build-depending on them. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
