Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #14145

Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian?

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

Hi Russ,

Quoting Russ Allbery (2026-02-02 20:36:26)
> Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> So far as I understand current coypright case law, the first sentence is
> factually incorrect as stated. I'm not sure that matters, since presumably
> it should be read as a statement of your beliefs, and even if those
> beliefs are not legally correct, they probably could be argued to
> constitute some type of promissary estoppel against you ever making a
> copyright claim for the content of the patches. But it does leave things
> in a somewhat ambiguous place.

Ok, so my wording is bad. But I suspect that your understanding is off
too. I could use some help with that.

(thanks for your reflections on using weakest possible licensing for
some purposes, that just doesn't seem to help here...)

I do not mean to say "this section contains works of mine, that you
should not assume being copyrightable, because I refuse to acknowledge
authorship to avoid them needing licensing" - and I guess that's the
reading that makes you consider it flat out incorrect.

What I mean to say is, instead, "this section contains works that I
cannot meaningfully state copyright and licensing for as a whole but
also cannot meaningfully inherit from the superset of debian/* (and the
superset of debian/* I cannot meaningfully omit because at least
copyright is unlikely to be same for packaging as for upstream work),
because each of the patches either a) is not copyrightable, or b) was
cherry-picked upstream so potentially (but not necessarily) have same
copyright and license as upstream project (i.e. not the nearest
superset section of debian/* in the machine-readable inheritance logic,
but topmost superset of *), or c) was created by the same authors as in
the superset section of debian/* so potentially (but not necessarily)
have same copyright and licensing as the packaging (which might be same
as upstream but maybe not), or d) was created by others than both
upstream and Debian packaging (e.g. contributed in a bugreport) so may
have any license and certainly differing copyright".

Even for packaging licensed same as upstream (i.e.  putting aside for a
moment the topic discussed in this thread), stating (implicitly or
explicitly) that debian/patches/* have same copyright and license as
the upstream project would still be wrong: At least copyright would
differ for most patches, and is likely to differ among the patches.

I tried to boil those 4 concerns into one short sentence. That failed,
as your reply demonstrates, but I don't think that your response covers
the concerns that I want to get across.

I can see how my original question about *choosing* a packaging license
and then shifting to talk about (copyright and) license of a subset of
packaging could lead to you reading that as being about *choosing* a
licensing for patches.

My concerns regarding debian/copyright coverage for patche is how to be
explicit about an ambiguity not introduced by my choice of packaging
license but merely more strongly exposed when upstream and packaging
licenses differ.

There are two ways that I can meaningfully state that the Eiffel Tower
is not for sale. Either I claim to know the owners and their opinions
in the matter, or I claim to be the (sole) owner and it is my opinion.

Similarly, license of assets in a Debian package can be described
either because the license is referenced or it is chosen.

The debian/copyright file lack that distinction: For some parts,
copyright and license represent a reference from elsewhere, but for
other parts they represent the source of truth on the matter.

I use an unofficial field "Reference" to indicate the difference:

Files: *
Copyright: them
License: TheseAreTheRules
Reference:
Comment:
 A Reference: field pointing elsewhere (or omitted) indicates that
 License and Copyright is referenced rather than introduced here.

Files: debian/*
Copyright: us
License: ThusThouShallDo
Reference: debian/copyright
Comment:
 A Reference: field pointing to $self indicates that License and
 Copyright originates here - i.e. look no further, as this is the
 source of those statements.
 If some project (as has happened at least once) copies the
 debian/copyright file e.g. as contrib/copyright, then it automatically
 stops being the source of truth but instead hints at where to look for
 potentially more up-to-date information.

Does that intent make sense now? Do you see how it arguably makes sense
even when *not* strongly copyleft-licensing the packaging?

I never *intended* to piss on the licensing choices made upstream, but
it occured to me, from the strong reactions to my descriptions of my
current practice, that it may be perceived that way. And that is the
reason I now want to (not change but) make explicit the "default" state
of debian/patches/* in debian/copyright: I want to clarify, that
patches are not simply "same as above", both because "abocve" is
ambiguous and because "same" is only rarely true (and different,
depending on the ambuguous "above").

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Back to linux.debian.project | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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