Hi Paul,
On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 12:54:25PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Fri, 2024-01-05 at 22:31 -0800, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
Imagine I take some code from a freely licensed reference implementation and
customize it.� The result is a derived work.� But this embedding isn't removable - the reference implementation shouldn't accept changes to integrate
it into a specific project.
The reference implementation should be flexible enough to work as a
library imported/loaded/linked by any project that wants to use it.
Perhaps - but some people provide code without having any interest in the implementation details that users might run into. Still, that code might be useful to use & distribute.
This is one of many ways Debian and upstream might have different or conflicting goals.
It'd be reasonable to include the original license and copyright statements.
Right.
If I do, Debian requires packagers to describe the license and copyright on those embedded license/copyright files.� And I'm puzzled about how to do that
best.
Same as for any other file in the source package, list in the debian/copyright which files have which copyrights and licenses.
Heh, right - the problem is executing that. :) Folks typically take care to document the copyright on code, not so often licenses (the FSF licenses being the exception, they are clear).
(I realize not much hangs on this - but cme/licensecheck raised the issue to
me.� I can ignore it, but also got curious and tried to figure out what to do.)
What issue did it print? Which package/code is this about BTW?
src:efl is a pastice of original work, dervied code, and vendored copies. The situation I asked about is somewhat simplified from real ones. Here's two harder cases than what the wiki considers:
-
https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-e-team/efl/-/blob/debian/sid/src/static_libs/rg_etc/README
This is a Zlib license statement for code derived from another project. This
copy has been rewritten from C++ -> C. So the changes wouldn't be appropriate
for the upstream project.
What license and copyright holders can I write for this file? The text is
derived from the Zlib license, but I also don't know who wrote that.
-
https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-e-team/efl/-/blob/debian/sid/src/static_libs/fnmatch/COPYRIGHT
This is from an included copy of musl's fnmatch algorithm. I think EFL
includes this for portability, to ensure that the same fnmatch is used on
Linux, BSD, and Windows. Even if that's not needed in Debian, I don't think I
can link to musl and glibc.
Interestingly, base-files (which contains /usr/share/common-licenses) doesn't contain any copyright information for some of it's licenses. It also doesn't use dep5 copyright, and so probably not licensechcek/cme. So no one is being bugged to document who holds the copyright to the MPL-1.1.
Ross
[1] - src:efl has those too. I'm recently trying to remove a libunbreak copy
in the static_libs directory.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEsAjXULa3g2HtU1bw2rOJMppM+hYFAmWkYEYACgkQ2rOJMppM +hbTEw//XrJU+uMVCcRfvSbvlqMSe0VK727m/vqugysvQgyse5O/1TGDkJBrfs1b Z791BioOf4askj1wWWM4E1gRDWHQNt8abumnGUFe4obDvSzsnB57P+t5jrq8WQRn Ev5y46+ohvcG/uI21LDpGdHH+oPFgaMB7FCNKamjJNFjwyBj2U031EGnoT8mKXaL a/ZGnp2q7syGsNWHuM8Nil+/haoNzG8e6il0LqoSvIByAJcgTYTZnTtjfysdH9Ov zlyoX0pJlaP3HVExOgktHxG8ACWOwjkWV9YGtE4WHYlh/1K5/g4gf/gtjF9lMbLV gX8m+PhxcEwoOJ1F3jPFOBpYbfjm4dGyJ/KbgRSwrYkvp7HT+UfnrE7m4VRI4DS1 Q3NOaN1Uf5NvuS7aCApfIkPZf8Wpo9eKBbHRmUmX6rqwk1FtgYmEylCt/we4Loj1 umHFNmmu7Ik+17gKX6rHcJSMVLm1Sqqd6WnuDfWlc4892VU1o4feFAYbL9qXM8+f ozfG1144gARrc5RyfoKc1ZbxLMp0E7QVBQACr7nvqL4wAb/i+r4FHWICYQOAqkyr WNTBuOS1K5eK3xwH39A3PmmGawHT3O+W9hm26qIIuE+LfOQYFR8EYuu9vQjx/gSc WFIcuRj24bDE/EDH3FecLD7mWMFhixHJUt+Ipmot1nt6oXb/ptk=
=3uWg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)