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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #256123 > unrolled thread

Consultation on license documents

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Consultation on license documents 刘涛 <liut@nipc.org.cn> - 2023-03-17 14:20 +0100
    Re: Consultation on license documents Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2023-03-17 15:00 +0100
      Re: Consultation on license documents Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2023-03-17 19:30 +0100
        Re: Re: Consultation on license documents 刘涛 <liut@nipc.org.cn> - 2023-03-18 04:30 +0100
          Re: Re: Consultation on license documents Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> - 2023-03-18 08:50 +0100
            Re: Consultation on license documents rhkramer@gmail.com - 2023-03-25 19:30 +0100
    Re: Consultation on license documents davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2023-03-17 17:30 +0100

#256123 — Consultation on license documents

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

Hello, I have the following questions to consult and look forward to your authoritative answers.
1. Must various software packages in the Debian community contain a license file "license.txt"? Without this file, how does the users know about the license usage of the package?
2. I found that each software package has a "Copyleft" document, and a lot of license information is also listed in this document. Therefore, I would like to ask, when the two documents "license.txt" and "Copyleft" exist in the software package at the same time, which one should the user take as the basis, and how to deal with the situation where the declared license information of the two documents is inconsistent, Which shall prevail?
3. If the software package only contains "Copyleft" documents, can users refer to the license information declared in this document?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#256125

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:05:21PM +0800, 刘涛 wrote:
> 1. Must various software packages in the Debian community contain a license file "license.txt"? Without this file, how does the users know about the license usage of the package?

Each package must contain a file named "copyright" which contains the
license(s) which apply to that package.

On an installed system, these are in the /usr/share/doc/PKGNAME/
directories:

unicorn:~$ ls /usr/share/doc/libc6
changelog.Debian.gz  copyright       NEWS.gz           README.hesiod.gz
changelog.gz         NEWS.Debian.gz  README.Debian.gz

> 2. I found that each software package has a "Copyleft" document, and a lot of license information is also listed in this document. Therefore, I would like to ask, when the two documents "license.txt" and "Copyleft" exist in the software package at the same time, which one should the user take as the basis, and how to deal with the situation where the declared license information of the two documents is inconsistent, Which shall prevail?

The term "copyleft" is used by GNU (specifically Richard Stallman, I
believe) to describe the GNU General Public License (GPL).  I've never
seen that term used in any other context.  It's certainly not the name
of any file present in Debian packages at large.

> 3. If the software package only contains "Copyleft" documents, can users refer to the license information declared in this document?

Again, the license(s) are in the "copyright" files, one per package.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256145

Greg Wooledge dijo [Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:36:26AM -0400]:
> > 2. I found that each software package has a "Copyleft" document,
> > and a lot of license information is also listed in this
> > document. Therefore, I would like to ask, when the two documents
> > "license.txt" and "Copyleft" exist in the software package at the
> > same time, which one should the user take as the basis, and how to
> > deal with the situation where the declared license information of
> > the two documents is inconsistent, Which shall prevail?
>
> The term "copyleft" is used by GNU (specifically Richard Stallman, I
> believe) to describe the GNU General Public License (GPL).  I've never
> seen that term used in any other context.  It's certainly not the name
> of any file present in Debian packages at large.

The term might have been _coined_ by Richard Stallman, but is quite
used throughout the Free Software communities. Any license which (as
the GPL does) requires all further distributions of derivatives of the
original work under the same terms (particularly for software,
including full sources and the right to modify them) are termed
copyleft in general; non-code licenses such as the Creative Commons
(share-alike variants) are also copyleft licenses.

> > 3. If the software package only contains "Copyleft" documents, can
> > users refer to the license information declared in this document?
>
> Again, the license(s) are in the "copyright" files, one per package.

Right. I would add to your initial explanation that, having a
/usr/share/doc/PKGNAME/copyright, having any other files installed as
part of a binary package with licensing details can be considered a
bug, and only /usr/share/doc/PKGNAME/copyright should be considered
authoritative in a Debian system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256156

Oh my god, I'm so sorry. I originally wanted to say that every software package in Debian will have a "copyright" document, but the input method was mistakenly typed as copyleft. Because I found that every package in Debian will have a "copyright" document, but not every package has a "license.txt" document. So I want to confirm that we users want to know the license usage of the software package, which document should prevail. In addition, when the license information declared in the two documents is inconsistent, how should we deal with it, and which document shall prevail.

"Gunnar Wolf" <gwolf@debian.org>写道：
> Greg Wooledge dijo [Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:36:26AM -0400]:
> > > 2. I found that each software package has a "Copyleft" document,
> > > and a lot of license information is also listed in this
> > > document. Therefore, I would like to ask, when the two documents
> > > "license.txt" and "Copyleft" exist in the software package at the
> > > same time, which one should the user take as the basis, and how to
> > > deal with the situation where the declared license information of
> > > the two documents is inconsistent, Which shall prevail?
> >
> > The term "copyleft" is used by GNU (specifically Richard Stallman, I
> > believe) to describe the GNU General Public License (GPL).  I've never
> > seen that term used in any other context.  It's certainly not the name
> > of any file present in Debian packages at large.
> 
> The term might have been _coined_ by Richard Stallman, but is quite
> used throughout the Free Software communities. Any license which (as
> the GPL does) requires all further distributions of derivatives of the
> original work under the same terms (particularly for software,
> including full sources and the right to modify them) are termed
> copyleft in general; non-code licenses such as the Creative Commons
> (share-alike variants) are also copyleft licenses.
> 
> > > 3. If the software package only contains "Copyleft" documents, can
> > > users refer to the license information declared in this document?
> >
> > Again, the license(s) are in the "copyright" files, one per package.
> 
> Right. I would add to your initial explanation that, having a
> /usr/share/doc/PKGNAME/copyright, having any other files installed as
> part of a binary package with licensing details can be considered a
> bug, and only /usr/share/doc/PKGNAME/copyright should be considered
> authoritative in a Debian system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256157

Quoting 刘涛 (2023-03-18 03:49:34)
> Oh my god, I'm so sorry. I originally wanted to say that every software package in Debian will have a "copyright" document, but the input method was mistakenly typed as copyleft. Because I found that every package in Debian will have a "copyright" document, but not every package has a "license.txt" document. So I want to confirm that we users want to know the license usage of the software package, which document should prevail. In addition, when the license information declared in the two documents is inconsistent, how should we deal with it, and which document shall prevail.

Some projects include a file intended to cover the whole project
(typically located in the root folder) containing only a general license
and nothing else (no copyright statements).
Such a file has no legal effect over other files from simply being
present in the project.  To have effect over other files the project
need to have its copyright holders *grant* a license.

Some projects include a file intended to cover the whole project
(typically located in the root folder) where someone claims to hold
copyright and state that they as copyright holder *grant* certain
license over all or some portion of the project.  This affects those
other files that the statement is about.  If multiple copyright claims
and/or multiple license granting statements, then only the licensing
granted by the copyright holder has effect - i.e. if same copyright
holder grants multiple licenses then possibly (depending on wording)
*either* of those licenses apply, free of choice for each user, but
since only a copyright holder has the right to grant a license, if
someone claims copyright over a whole project but parts of the project
in reality was relicensed from someone else then only that someone else
had the right to license their parts.

If unclear who owns what and/or who granted what, then beware that legal
rules are different from math and logic: In the end copyright and
licensing statements are *intents* and their legal effect is only
certain when tried in a courtroom (and even then may be tried again with
potentially different legal interpretation in another courtroom for same
or another legal jurisdiction).

Common rule of thumb is that the most narrow statements have effect.

So if you have a code project with a bunch of code files, and one file
LICENSE.txt containing the GPLv3 licensing text and nothing else, and
another file COPYING.txt that says the equivalent o "I, Jonas, claim
to be the owner of creative works within this code project, and I grant
anyone the rights to use and copy and modify what I control the rights
over, by the legal principles of the Apache-2.0 general public license"
then that project is licensed as Apache-2.0 and *not* as GPL-3.

But if that same project, in addition to those two text files, also
within each code file contains a statement that I, Jonas, am copyright
holder and grants the rights of BSD-3, then those files are licensed as
BSD-3.  If nothing else in the project is copyright-protectable, then 
the project is dual-licensed as *either* BSD-3 *or* Apache-2.0 (but
still as GPL-3 because that license only *exist* but nothing in the
project has been *granted* those rules that it represents).

If instead, in addition to my copyright claim and Apache-licensing of
the project as a whole, the copyright holder of each and every
copyright-protecable file within the project was someone else, then my
claim had no effect over those files, and in reality the project would
be licensed as BSD-3 (not as Apache-2.0).

Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so only use my input here as
inspiration but seek a lawyer if you want legal certainty.


 - 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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256372

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 03:33:46 AM Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> But if that same project, in addition to those two text files, also
> within each code file contains a statement that I, Jonas, am copyright
> holder and grants the rights of BSD-3, then those files are licensed as
> BSD-3.  If nothing else in the project is copyright-protectable, then
> the project is dual-licensed as *either* BSD-3 *or* Apache-2.0 (but
> still as GPL-3 because that license only *exist* but nothing in the
> project has been *granted* those rules that it represents).

Should that have said:

(but still *not* as GPL-3 because that license only *exist* but nothing in the 
project has been *granted* those rules that it represents).

??
 
> If instead, in addition to my copyright claim and Apache-licensing of
> the project as a whole, the copyright holder of each and every
> copyright-protecable file within the project was someone else, then my
> claim had no effect over those files, and in reality the project would
> be licensed as BSD-3 (not as Apache-2.0).

I guess you're assuming that all of those other copyright holders granted a 
license as BSD-3 (and not as a whole mishmash of other licenses)?

> Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so only use my input here as
> inspiration but seek a lawyer if you want legal certainty.

Me, too!

-- 
rhk 

(sig revised 20230312 -- modified first paragraph, some other irrelevant 
wordsmithing)
                
| No entity has permission to use this email to train an AI. 

If you reply: snip, snip, and snip again; leave attributions; avoid HTML; 
avoid top posting; and keep it "on list".  (Oxford comma (and semi-colon) 
included at no charge.)  If you revise the topic, change the Subject: line.  
If you change the topic, start a new thread.

Writing is often meant for others to read and understand (legal documents 
excepted?) -- make it easier for your reader by various means, including 
liberal use of whitespace (short paragraphs, separated by whitespace / blank 
lines) and minimal use of (obscure?) jargon, abbreviations, acronyms, and 
references.

If someone has already responded to a question, decide whether any response 
you add will be helpful or not ...

A picture is worth a thousand words.  A video (or "audio"): not so much -- 
divide by 10 for each minute of video (or audio) or create a transcript and 
edit it to 10% of the original.

A speaker who uses ahhs, ums, or such may have a real physical or mental 
disability, or may be showing disrespect for his listeners by not properly 
preparing in advance and thinking before speaking. (That speaker might have 
been "trained" to do this by being interrupted often if he pauses.)  (Remember 
Cicero who did not have enough time to write a short missive.)

A radio (or TV) station which broadcasts speakers with high pitched voices (or 
very low pitched / gravelly voices) (which older people might not be able to 
hear properly) disrespects its listeners.   Likewise if it broadcasts 
extraneous or disturbing sounds (like gunfire or crying), or broadcasts 
speakers using their native language (with or without an overdubbed 
translation).

A person who writes a sig this long probably has issues and disrespects (and 
offends) a large number of readers. ;-)
'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#256143

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

On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 刘涛 wrote:

> Hello, I have the following questions to consult and look forward to
> your authoritative answers.
[OP's legal questions elided]

   Legal issues
   https://www.debian.org/legal/

   The mailing list for Debian legal matters is

     debian-legal@lists.debian.org

   To subscribe, send a message with the word "subscribe" as the
   subject to

     debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org

   or use the mailing list subscription web page:

     https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/

   The list is archived at the list archives [available at url above].

-- 
Ce qui est important est rarement urgent
et ce qui est urgent est rarement important
-- Dwight David Eisenhower

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web