• Fwd: License question virtualbox-ext-pack vs. virtualbox-guest-addition

    From Christian Kuka@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 11 11:50:01 2022
    This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
    Hello Debain Legal team,

    I'm in doubt about the licenses of the packages virtualbox-ext-pack and virtualbox-guest-additions-iso in the Debian repositories. Please see my
    email below to the Debian Virtualbox team.


    kind regards

    Christian



    -------- Forwarded Message --------
    Subject: License question virtualbox-ext-pack vs. virtualbox-guest-additions-iso
    Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:54:01 +0100
    From: Christian Kuka <[email protected]>
    To: [email protected]



    Hi all,

    In our team we just came across the question which license apply to the virtualbox debian packages and we were a little bit confused by the
    copyright files of the virtualbox packages.

    - For virtualbox-ext-pack, the copyright file is mentioning BSD-3-clause
    as the license:

    https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//contrib/v/virtualbox-ext-pack/virtualbox-ext-pack_6.1.40-1_copyright


    - For virtualbox-guest-additions-iso, the copyright file is mentioning Virtualbox-PUEL as the license:

    https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//non-free/v/virtualbox-guest-additions-iso/virtualbox-guest-additions-iso_6.1.40-1_copyright


    However, according to the description of virtualbox-ext-pack at https://packages.debian.org/sid/virtualbox-ext-pack as well as at https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Licensing_FAQ only the "VirtualBox
    Extension Pack" is licensed under the
    "VirtualBox Extension Pack Personal Use and Evaluation License" and
    VirtualBox base package (full source code and platform binaries) are
    licensed under the GNU General Public License, version 2. Thus, "virtualbox-ext-pack" should mention PUEL in the copyright file and "virtualbox-guest-additions-iso" should mention a different license?
    Further, if that is the case, should "virtualbox-ext-pack" be moved to
    non-free instead of contrib?

    Is there a misunderstanding on our side or is there already a
    clarification on the Debian pages?


    kind regards

    Christian



    <html>
    <head>

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
    </head>
    <body>
    <p>Hello Debain Legal team,</p>
    <p>I'm in doubt about the licenses of the packages
    virtualbox-ext-pack and virtualbox-guest-additions-iso in the
    Debian repositories. Please see my email below to the Debian
    Virtualbox team.</p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>kind regards</p>
    <p>Christian<br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
    <br>
    -------- Forwarded Message --------
    <table class="moz-email-headers-table" cellspacing="0"
    cellpadding="0" border="0">
    <tbody>
    <tr>
    <th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Subject:
    </th>
    <td>License question virtualbox-ext-pack vs.
    virtualbox-guest-additions-iso</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
    <th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">Date: </th>
    <td>Thu, 10 Nov 2022 13:54:01 +0100</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
    <th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">From: </th>
    <td>Christian Kuka <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]">&lt;[email protected]&gt;</a></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
    <th valign="BASELINE" nowrap="nowrap" align="RIGHT">To: </th>
    <td><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a></td>
    </tr>
    </tbody>
    </table>
    <br>
    <br>
    Hi all,<br>
    <br>
    In our team we just came across the question which license apply
    to the virtualbox debian packages and we were a little bit
    confused by the copyright files of the virtualbox packages.<br>
    <br>
    - For virtualbox-ext-pack, the copyright file is mentioning
    BSD-3-clause as the license:<br>
    <br>
    <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//contrib/v/virtualbox-ext-pack/virtualbox-ext-pack_6.1.40-1_copyright">https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//contrib/v/virtualbox-ext-pack/virtualbox-
    ext-pack_6.1.40-1_copyright</a><br>
    <br>
    <br>
    - For virtualbox-guest-additions-iso, the copyright file is
    mentioning Virtualbox-PUEL as the license:<br>
    <br>
    <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//non-free/v/virtualbox-guest-additions-iso/virtualbox-guest-additions-iso_6.1.40-1_copyright">https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//non-free/v/
    virtualbox-guest-additions-iso/virtualbox-guest-additions-iso_6.1.40-1_copyright</a><br>
    <br>
    <br>
    However, according to the description of virtualbox-ext-pack at
    <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://packages.debian.org/sid/virtualbox-ext-pack">https://packages.debian.org/sid/virtualbox-ext-pack</a> as well as at
    <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Licensing_FAQ">https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Licensing_FAQ</a> only the "VirtualBox
    Extension Pack" is licensed under the<br>
    "VirtualBox Extension Pack Personal Use and Evaluation License"
    and VirtualBox base package (full source code and platform
    binaries) are licensed under the GNU General Public License,
    version 2. Thus, "virtualbox-ext-pack" should mention PUEL in the
    copyright file and "virtualbox-guest-additions-iso" should mention
    a different license? Further, if that is the case, should
    "virtualbox-ext-pack" be moved to non-free instead of contrib?<br>
    <br>
    Is there a misunderstanding on our side or is there already a
    clarification on the Debian pages?<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    kind regards<br>
    <br>
    Christian<br>
    <br>
    <br>
    <br>
    </div>
    </body>
    </html>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)