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
Reply to: