Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.project > #14135
| From | Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.project |
| Subject | Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian? |
| Date | 2026-02-02 17:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Mk4EV-fdPF-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <Mk1xo-fbA5-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <Mk2jL-fc8q-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <Mk3Sx-fdfc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Hi, On Mon, 2026-02-02 at 19:27 +0500, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > It wasn't clear that you explicitly exclude debian/patches/ from the > discussion and your questions. You even mentioned that "Sometimes I > proactively license patches potential for upstream adoption > same as upstream, but generally I don't". Note that, for example, the GPL-2 contains this: "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." The Debian packaging is (IMHO) "scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable". Thus the GPL-2 requires these to be included under GPL-2-compatible terms. Using GPL-2-incompatible licenses such as the GPL-3-or-later thus makes it hard to comply with the GPL-2 (though so does statically linking GPL-3-or-later libraries like libstdc++, so maybe practically GPL-2 and GPL-3 should be considered compatible in Debian even if FSF might disagree). Unless the FSF fixes these problems (at least for -or-later) by releasing a GPL-2-compatible GPL-4. Ansgar
Back to linux.debian.project | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian? Gerardo Ballabio <gerardo.ballabio@gmail.com> - 2026-02-02 13:50 +0100
Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian? Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> - 2026-02-02 14:40 +0100
Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian? Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2026-02-02 16:20 +0100
Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian? Ansgar 🙀 <ansgar@debian.org> - 2026-02-02 17:10 +0100
Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian? Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> - 2026-02-02 20:10 +0100
Is Packaging Copyrightable (was: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian?) Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2026-02-02 20:20 +0100
Re: Is Packaging Copyrightable (was: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian?) Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> - 2026-02-03 15:10 +0100
Re: Is Packaging Copyrightable (was: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian?) Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2026-02-03 18:00 +0100
Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian? Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2026-02-02 21:50 +0100
Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian? Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> - 2026-02-03 15:10 +0100
Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian? Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2026-02-03 23:30 +0100
Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian? Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2026-02-04 00:00 +0100
Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian? Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2026-02-04 00:20 +0100
Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian? Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2026-02-04 02:40 +0100
Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian? Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2026-02-04 19:00 +0100
Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian? thomas@goirand.fr - 2026-02-02 20:20 +0100
csiph-web