Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.project > #13240
| From | Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.project |
| Subject | Re: Re: Consultation on license documents |
| Date | 2023-03-18 09:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <GazDP-dhYi-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <Gai9X-d715-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <Gaitj-d78u-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <GamQh-da3L-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <Gav7b-dfc6-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
[ Dropping the Cc: to debian-user@lists.debian.org - Please don't
cross-post if you can avoid it! That is, please don't send the same
mail to multiple mailing lists ]
刘涛 dijo [Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 10:49:34AM +0800]:
> 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.
My first answer to this question was "/usr/share/doc/PKGNAME/copyright
is authoritative and should prevail", but on a second thought, I must
agree with Theodore Ts'o, who rightfully said:
I am not a lawyer, and even if I were a lawyer, I am not *your*
lawyer, so I am not in a position to give legal advice. If you
want an authoratative opinion, you will need to find a lawyer who
is willing to give you formal legal advice, and they will very ask
to be paid in order to give you that opinion.
So... There is no one-size-fits-all answer here.
But if you find a /usr/share/doc/PKGNAME/copyright document being
inconsistent with a license.txt file (or with any licensing header
included as part of any of the files, or whatever like that), please
file it as a high-severity bug!
Greetings,
Back to linux.debian.project | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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: Re: Consultation on license documents Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2023-03-18 09:00 +0100
Re: Re: Consultation on license documents <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2023-03-18 10:10 +0100
Re: Consultation on license documents davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2023-03-17 17:30 +0100
csiph-web