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


Groups > linux.debian.project > #13240

Re: Re: Consultation on license documents

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

Show all headers | View raw


[ 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 | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


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