Forum: >>> Magnum BBS <<<

Re: Missing copyright clause of debian directory

From Soren Stoutner@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 12 12:48:20 2024

As an additional followup, as the original debian/* files were licensed GPLv2+,
if you edit a file you can choose to make your contribution GPLv3+, which would
convert the entire file to GPLv3+. If you end up editing all of the files in debian/* at least once, you could convert the entire copyright entry to GPLv3+.

I can’t do that with Electrum because there is no automatic conversion from GPLv3+ to Expat. But it is an option that is open to you if you would like to pursue it. It also isn’t a problem if you decide to leave all your contributions to debian/* as GPLv2+, as any GPLv2+ file can be contributed to an upstream GPLv3+ project (that’s the beauty of using GPLv2+ instead of GPLv2: it can be converted to later versions with any additional permission from the copyright holders).

On Friday, April 12, 2024 12:40:55 PM MST Soren Stoutner wrote:

As an additional comment, I currently maintain Electrum. Upstream is

licensed

Expat. Previous maintainers licensed their debian/* contributions GPLv3+. When I took over the package, I started working closely with upstream and wanted to contribute patches and other files, like AppSream metainfo to them.

To do this, I wanted all of my new contributions to debian/* to be licensed under Expat when I was the sole author of the file, and dual licensed under GPLv3+ and Expat when I was editing an existing file. I indicated that in the following way:

Files: debian/*
Copyright: 2013-2015 Vasudev Kamath <[email protected]>
2013 Gregor Herrmann <[email protected]>
2013-2021 Tristan Seligmann <[email protected]>
2019-2020 Laurent Bigonville <[email protected]>
2022 Bastian Germann <[email protected]>
2022-2024 Soren Stoutner <[email protected]>
License: GPL-3+
Comment:
The following copyright holders additionally license their
contributions to debian/* under the Expat license so that
if all other listed contributors agree it can be relicensed
under Expat, which is the license used by upstream and makes it
easier for contributions to be upstreamed when appropriate:
Soren Stoutner, Bastian Germann.

Files: debian/electrum.1
Copyright: 2023-2024 Soren Stoutner <[email protected]>
License: Expat

Files: debian/patches/*
Copyright: 2022-2024 Soren Stoutner <[email protected]>
License: Expat

Files: debian/patches/Improve-message-about-PyQt5.patch
Copyright: 2020 Tristan Seligmann <[email protected]>
License: GPL-3+

https://sources.debian.org/src/electrum/4.5.4%2Bdfsg-1/debian/copyright/[1]

On Friday, April 12, 2024 12:10:43 PM MST Richard Laager wrote:

I've only looked at this situation for a total of five minutes prior to writing this email, so take this with a grain of salt. But to help you
make forward progress...

Upstream seems to use GPL-3+ (not GPL-3). For example: https://github.com/fxbois/web-mode/blob/

a9d21841224da3295f2dd0a90022f5e435e4

80 46/web-mode.el#L13

The existing copyright says GPL-2+ (not GPL-2).

On 2024-04-10 23:05, Xiyue Deng wrote:

1. whether I can add the new copyright section to cover debian/*, and

I think it is pretty typical to have a debian/* section. And if the licenses differ (see below), then you would _have_ to have separate sections.

--
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJKVN2yNUZnlcqOI+wufLJ66wtgMFAmYZkAQACgkQwufLJ66w tgOe5Q/9Fb/1uWOy5KsHcMHq8KqEH8yza1fpftQPA0UIFsNLUsCOj/vZLHdoPpWy RZiie4glX6eEHLby6u/BScWSG8vOvKTITSBlt7FEy5MGeWMZ9ogvv+/4hoq6hN7V zxSBt3laQf9UAz4dXJA8cY8j760Z+b+IE5aQb+dfAvM6n606P3GrS37RYB0bCXd2 zW3rOLzOTt+AtLjnw22UwhjA+/ZbeN9deXB72ZgXTSgHJXxDb2pHGJzzc1AejQBN exZaN68zgiCzz6B6lIvCql6CGZoj4qXIs7J3ZBeul1sDyWSINk+0Mhl3j6BORYNe q4PuLroxfaQpJNir8BncmHwgmKYAKyrGu6fPZGCMexkXyp4GWkKbOBYPgVLtRrbE HOYRN5zZ3Xy3XfqXAqTFZPoFJMDyIdhmkOy7k0IYGEU3UTJUbyayg0WLwVsXFaEc Sbc+RDUOtnjuvW0RW0KvUinjn0hDMVxRvL04JsOzOT9gRC8e0PBol8QmVwjDIl/r GJgZnA/40oVKi5/MPFZkrdFBQiSqqKtGaXikKT55VhUt5V8Dlt/fx8b+V6SZfmKc ++s6TcVTpAEkMJEI37E11sh32RP4oZyMKpO3NDglxy+7Vd5eL/PtZtBUmVJHp0tk nDT3tfpfNaUr2q3FlsPI+t2YiTgKoPXuScuECq4hHhPE4yp9AD0=
=axnV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

From Soren Stoutner@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 12 12:40:55 2024

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--nextPart2570801.Z7MMgTzC2R
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

As an additional comment, I currently maintain Electrum. Upstream is licensed Expat.
Previous maintainers licensed their debian/* contributions GPLv3+. When I took over the
package, I started working closely with upstream and wanted to contribute patches and
other files, like AppSream metainfo to them.

To do this, I wanted all of my new contributions to debian/* to be licensed under Expat
when I was the sole author of the file, and dual licensed under GPLv3+ and Expat when I
was editing an existing file. I indicated that in the following way:

Files: debian/*
Copyright: 2013-2015 Vasudev Kamath <[email protected]>
2013 Gregor Herrmann <[email protected]>
2013-2021 Tristan Seligmann <[email protected]>
2019-2020 Laurent Bigonville <[email protected]>
2022 Bastian Germann <[email protected]>
2022-2024 Soren Stoutner <[email protected]>
License: GPL-3+
Comment:
The following copyright holders additionally license their
contributions to debian/* under the Expat license so that
if all other listed contributors agree it can be relicensed
under Expat, which is the license used by upstream and makes it
easier for contributions to be upstreamed when appropriate:
Soren Stoutner, Bastian Germann.

Files: debian/electrum.1
Copyright: 2023-2024 Soren Stoutner <[email protected]>
License: Expat

Files: debian/patches/*
Copyright: 2022-2024 Soren Stoutner <[email protected]>
License: Expat

Files: debian/patches/Improve-message-about-PyQt5.patch
Copyright: 2020 Tristan Seligmann <[email protected]>
License: GPL-3+

https://sources.debian.org/src/electrum/4.5.4%2Bdfsg-1/debian/copyright/[1]

On Friday, April 12, 2024 12:10:43 PM MST Richard Laager wrote:

I've only looked at this situation for a total of five minutes prior to writing this email, so take this with a grain of salt. But to help you
make forward progress...

Upstream seems to use GPL-3+ (not GPL-3). For example: https://github.com/fxbois/web-mode/blob/a9d21841224da3295f2dd0a90022f5e435e480
46/web-mode.el#L13

The existing copyright says GPL-2+ (not GPL-2).

On 2024-04-10 23:05, Xiyue Deng wrote:

1. whether I can add the new copyright section to cover debian/*, and

I think it is pretty typical to have a debian/* section. And if the
licenses differ (see below), then you would _have_ to have separate
sections.

--nextPart2570801.Z7MMgTzC2R
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>As an additional comment, I currently maintain Electrum.  Upstream is licensed Expat.  Previous maintainers licensed their debian/* contributions GPLv3+.  When I
took over the package, I started working closely with upstream and wanted to contribute patches and other files, like AppSream metainfo to them.
 To do this, I wanted all of my new contributions to debian/* to be licensed under Expat when I was the sole author of the file, and dual licensed under GPLv3+ and Expat when I
was editing an existing file.  I indicated that in the following way: Files:     debian/*
Copyright: 2013-2015 Vasudev Kamath <[email protected]>
           2013 Gregor Herrmann <[email protected]>
           2013-2021 Tristan Seligmann <[email protected]>
           2019-2020 Laurent Bigonville <[email protected]>
           2022 Bastian Germann <[email protected]>
           2022-2024 Soren Stoutner <[email protected]>
License:   GPL-3+
Comment:
 The following copyright holders additionally license their
 contributions to debian/* under the Expat license so that
 if all other listed contributors agree it can be relicensed
 under Expat, which is the license used by upstream and makes it
 easier for contributions to be upstreamed when appropriate:
 Soren Stoutner, Bastian Germann.
 Files:     debian/electrum.1
Copyright: 2023-2024 Soren Stoutner <[email protected]>
License:   Expat
 Files:     debian/patches/*
Copyright: 2022-2024 Soren Stoutner <[email protected]>
License:   Expat
 Files:     debian/patches/Improve-message-about-PyQt5.patch
Copyright: 2020 Tristan Seligmann <[email protected]>
License:   GPL-3+
 <a href="https://sources.debian.org/src/electrum/4.5.4%2Bdfsg-1/debian/copyright/">https://sources.debian.org/src/electrum/4.5.4%2Bdfsg-1/debian/copyright/</a>
 On Friday, April 12, 2024 12:10:43 PM MST Richard Laager wrote:
> I've only looked at this situation for a total of five minutes prior to 
> writing this email, so take this with a grain of salt. But to help you 
> make forward progress...
> > Upstream seems to use GPL-3+ (not GPL-3). For example:
> https://github.com/fxbois/web-mode/blob/a9d21841224da3295f2dd0a90022f5e435e480
> 46/web-mode.el#L13
 
> The existing copyright says GPL-2+ (not GPL-2).
> > On 2024-04-10 23:05, Xiyue Deng wrote:
> > > 1. whether I can add the new copyright section to cover debian/*, and
> > > I think it is pretty typical to have a debian/* section. And if the 
> licenses differ (see below), then you would _have_ to have separate 
> sections.
> > > > 2. whether I should use GPL-2 as when the previous maintainer last
> > worked on this or I can use GPL-3 to match upstream version as well?
> > > If that is what you believe applies to the debian files (which is what 
> debian/copyright says today), then I would keep it as that. GPL-2+ is, 
> of course, compatible with GPL-3+.
> > So I think you end up with something like this:
> > Files: *
> License: GPL-3+
> Copyright: fill in the upstream copyright holders
> > Files: debian/*
> License: GPL-2+
> Copyright: previous maintainer, you
> > -- 
> Richard
> -- 
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]
</body>
</html>
--nextPart2570801.Z7MMgTzC2R--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJKVN2yNUZnlcqOI+wufLJ66wtgMFAmYZjkcACgkQwufLJ66w tgPBUg//RFjMCzSR67FEitGtSp9dB+ABt19/zs2D878tuCCLA3hbksTuvruCqHuI LGfTsSdRujq6xaE4/Hq+Gh2xzpCKLSm1wfRxCqL34cTbeStKm/ItouhtrKKlyjt9 spY7vuXAEC9TjTF9PCclS3OvSRwqh4cSZwPft/GY5e6uJ96UwAnpNP2X4z0cH/TZ 65LjMzUQZLnzw6TSn96kguY79c9EI739VLpQW25XDuR08UsiULo1sSaiLrlnSnnN 0rdHV7NiwA+/EmLeGIC5YxnrfWCxJiCiXz8vqnlCYjXQ3HPJ3OkGlHz2KzQIKJD5 8T+haPKXSGHQSZn8XPBEkA9wbiQM/MxtC5O+JPyqSA6gnI0drgrW/lS5aLKacnuJ RxGJxuscOsL7TIOjLvFmhsGXtPeQdbvF4kX/tSi4jTeCjyUtbqyMdIwZEzTlodKZ 4k51tc77i6rSOKEQEQ6gbYNou9oz7O+kiFEDwM9iI5LWtC65cNUk8L4rJ7oJI0vY CR5zW6zcnZgrSJ9P/fkJqyIZGGp7S+jLFhVl9QXjXzNkTEtOjO1J3J3v36LCdie6 qVQZt0VJg8JmvNiHiNNGYlBbYmMfe9SYUpzhsLYV5hWCtfYkpNdevtZkS9ZQsSya 1HYAWV0NDVxJpwEboAUwRjN+HASIxw7Uki+FVJlt0xL0E4Pzc1E=
=Y0W4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

From Soren Stoutner@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 12 12:51:40 2024

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--nextPart2212919.4lg0Gpr8jh
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

"that’s the beauty of using GPLv2+ instead of GPLv2: it can be converted to later versions
*WITHOUT* any additional permission from the copyright holders”

That was an egregious enough typo that I felt compelled to send another email. I
apologize for the noise.

On Friday, April 12, 2024 12:48:20 PM MST Soren Stoutner wrote:

As an additional followup, as the original debian/* files were licensed GPLv2+, if you edit a file you can choose to make your contribution GPLv3+, which would convert the entire file to GPLv3+. If you end up editing all of the files in debian/* at least once, you could convert the entire copyright entry to GPLv3+.

I can’t do that with Electrum because there is no automatic conversion from GPLv3+ to Expat. But it is an option that is open to you if you would like to
pursue it. It also isn’t a problem if you decide to leave all your contributions to debian/* as GPLv2+, as any GPLv2+ file can be contributed to an upstream GPLv3+ project (that’s the beauty of using GPLv2+ instead of GPLv2: it can be converted to later versions with any additional permission from the copyright holders).

On Friday, April 12, 2024 12:40:55 PM MST Soren Stoutner wrote:

As an additional comment, I currently maintain Electrum. Upstream is

licensed

Expat. Previous maintainers licensed their debian/* contributions GPLv3+. When I took over the package, I started working closely with upstream and wanted to contribute patches and other files, like AppSream metainfo to them.

To do this, I wanted all of my new contributions to debian/* to be licensed under Expat when I was the sole author of the file, and dual licensed under GPLv3+ and Expat when I was editing an existing file. I indicated that in the following way:

Files: debian/*
Copyright: 2013-2015 Vasudev Kamath <[email protected]>

2013 Gregor Herrmann <[email protected]>
2013-2021 Tristan Seligmann <[email protected]>
2019-2020 Laurent Bigonville <[email protected]>
2022 Bastian Germann <[email protected]>
2022-2024 Soren Stoutner <[email protected]>

License: GPL-3+

Comment:
The following copyright holders additionally license their
contributions to debian/* under the Expat license so that
if all other listed contributors agree it can be relicensed
under Expat, which is the license used by upstream and makes it
easier for contributions to be upstreamed when appropriate:
Soren Stoutner, Bastian Germann.

Files: debian/electrum.1
Copyright: 2023-2024 Soren Stoutner <[email protected]>
License: Expat

--nextPart2212919.4lg0Gpr8jh
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>"that’s the beauty of using GPLv2+ instead of GPLv2: it can be converted to later versions WITHOUT any additional permission from the copyright
holders”
 That was an egregious enough typo that I felt compelled to send another email.  I apologize for the noise.
 On Friday, April 12, 2024 12:48:20 PM MST Soren Stoutner wrote:
> As an additional followup, as the original debian/* files were licensed
> GPLv2+, if you edit a file you can choose to make your contribution GPLv3+,
> which would convert the entire file to GPLv3+.  If you end up editing all of
> the files in debian/* at least once, you could convert the entire copyright
> entry to GPLv3+.
> > I can’t do that with Electrum because there is no automatic conversion from
> GPLv3+ to Expat.  But it is an option that is open to you if you would like to
> pursue it.  It also isn’t a problem if you decide to leave all your
> contributions to debian/* as GPLv2+, as any GPLv2+ file can be contributed to
> an upstream GPLv3+ project (that’s the beauty of using GPLv2+ instead of
> GPLv2: it can be converted to later versions with any additional permission
> from the copyright holders).
> > On Friday, April 12, 2024 12:40:55 PM MST Soren Stoutner wrote:
> > As an additional comment, I currently maintain Electrum.  Upstream is
> > licensed
> > > Expat. Previous maintainers licensed their debian/* contributions GPLv3+.
> > When I took over the package, I started working closely with upstream and
> > wanted to contribute patches and other files, like AppSream metainfo to
> > them.
> > 
> > To do this, I wanted all of my new contributions to debian/* to be licensed
> > under Expat when I was the sole author of the file, and dual licensed under
> > GPLv3+ and Expat when I was editing an existing file.  I indicated that in
> > the following way:
> > 
> > Files:     debian/*
> > Copyright: 2013-2015 Vasudev Kamath <[email protected]>
> > 
> >            2013 Gregor Herrmann <[email protected]>
> >            2013-2021 Tristan Seligmann <[email protected]>
> >            2019-2020 Laurent Bigonville <[email protected]>
> >            2022 Bastian Germann <[email protected]>
> >            2022-2024 Soren Stoutner <[email protected]>
> > 
> > License:   GPL-3+
> > 
> > Comment:
> >  The following copyright holders additionally license their
> >  contributions to debian/* under the Expat license so that
> >  if all other listed contributors agree it can be relicensed
> >  under Expat, which is the license used by upstream and makes it
> >  easier for contributions to be upstreamed when appropriate:
> >  Soren Stoutner, Bastian Germann.
> > 
> > Files:     debian/electrum.1
> > Copyright: 2023-2024 Soren Stoutner <[email protected]>
> > License:   Expat
> > 
> > Files:     debian/patches/*
> > Copyright: 2022-2024 Soren Stoutner <[email protected]>
> > License:   Expat
> > 
> > Files:     debian/patches/Improve-message-about-PyQt5.patch
> > Copyright: 2020 Tristan Seligmann <[email protected]>
> > License:   GPL-3+
> > 
> > https://sources.debian.org/src/electrum/4.5.4%2Bdfsg-1/debian/copyright/[1]
> > 
> > On Friday, April 12, 2024 12:10:43 PM MST Richard Laager wrote:
> > > I've only looked at this situation for a total of five minutes prior to
> > > writing this email, so take this with a grain of salt. But to help you
> > > make forward progress...
> > > 
> > > Upstream seems to use GPL-3+ (not GPL-3). For example:
> > > https://github.com/fxbois/web-mode/blob/
> > a9d21841224da3295f2dd0a90022f5e435e4
> > > > 80 46/web-mode.el#L13
> > > 
> > > The existing copyright says GPL-2+ (not GPL-2).
> > > 
> > > On 2024-04-10 23:05, Xiyue Deng wrote:
> > > > 1. whether I can add the new copyright section to cover debian/*, and
> > > 
> > > I think it is pretty typical to have a debian/* section. And if the
> > > licenses differ (see below), then you would _have_ to have separate
> > > sections.
 -- 
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]
</body>
</html>
--nextPart2212919.4lg0Gpr8jh--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJKVN2yNUZnlcqOI+wufLJ66wtgMFAmYZkMwACgkQwufLJ66w tgNRVg/7B174YZAfY9DLmRklPXz+Fru4fJRo+sjeKGnyc1uGEgMqxPvyGGnQs7Ph xJStwSlj8tcZftv3E/MS/eXxFg4V3ZJf5gv6aQcN5ERgKYMfgGsladNXJz3YjDDv Aqd2oGhRSKTsv4XCFFPrBqsUO1jUCAYbEztTGUg5noDuvoAYTHpNPXRwq7ep+d7g YWjaSoxhmJgw8I5ak5c9uBhDKek0QeytFY9RpagFqo0JjKDxdkSgtT9gRWnsg05r vnrTsZQj9GbpJ9NGFIk9TTrUqx8Ll56tyEa4gKlI6glcwmH4cNVhAKZi5P5aNuGY yILsrRCYS9jn+iJgJQPXAzKJk6Nc2YRyliD+lo0xHa2ZTp6g1MKQibkU6NMjcuvC AqeW12pM42DDMzpPBX8jCDoerf4gvHj283qTns0aTx0M5/kB0ZgZcDU8CSwROXwh Ari2acdQ8feleNwNi/yDLExDlVfCEoEOb+0r8R+4LRVjLx5m92/ZldZIDwvgWeFc oAmnUZl8qg1tyRPAEvqziPzYRS5KOaMQn+BzUrU6sm4ukyZzy9zeB+iRZ4Qk97Sz gmEnqciY+ys/+0XoZ78JuULE5CYdZj7z/LGdjqY6zUG3E3rqschQVM2X/h8p/WvY RT3iMRzOFVV//4ZBUkiO/5LpVSfLSHVq4MkqK17EiR1yb6TaZs4=
=/2MQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

From Nicholas D Steeves@21:1/5 to Soren Stoutner on Thu Jun 27 00:20:01 2024

Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> writes:

As an additional followup, as the original debian/* files were licensed GPLv2+,
if you edit a file you can choose to make your contribution GPLv3+, which would
convert the entire file to GPLv3+. If you end up editing all of the files in
debian/* at least once, you could convert the entire copyright entry to GPLv3+.

Soren, would you please provide evidence for "the original debian/*
files were licensed GPLv2+"? It looks to me like:

1. Thomas Koch gained copyright on fixation (ie: automatic in Berne
Convention countries)
2. Thomas Koch did not license his work
:. Thomas Koch retains "all rights reserved" and our web-mode has never actually been dfsg-free

3. Alternatively one could argue this: The initial packaging is not sufficiently original for debian/* to be copyrightable; however, this is
a question for lawyers, because it varies by jurisdiction.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4620875#:~:text=Originality%20is%20a%20pre%2Dcondition,been%20copied%20from%20another%20work.
https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article-pdf/13/8/597/25099746/jpy084.pdf

4. Also, if this is the case than it is *wrong* to declare Koch's
copyright and speculative license.

In conclusion, Thomas Koch needs to be contacted and a record needs to
exist on Debian infrastructure. So either on-list, or on the BTS, or
the method I had to use in src:muse-el, which is a package Xiyue Deng
(manphiz) maintains and must therefore be familiar with.

Regards,
Nicholas

--=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQJEBAEBCgAuFiEE4qYmHjkArtfNxmcIWogwR199EGEFAmZ8kpIQHHN0ZW5AZGVi aWFuLm9yZwAKCRBaiDBHX30QYYK5D/4pq1QBvD8FK9R5tySl482WF/D1G2cPrCd0 ij7QoQGhkT9WBndAcaEu4KE0+56FqDzgPbfxG1PoJU3Gy4xpgQaorVoJCW8rya3t XSPYPJ8XPMM1RuiK+wSo0+r5YBiqY0SGOYALR4NLRFJt9MF01JUELgtEiLIK0qNw W51K6UCty+LDpOUyyJiYfbpjkLBtA4zwHiYcQCNYbG6fKwD/zUoZ+QrCT8C9LMgr isf2AY8jCTCPUSk0o31Fv+WWY5P2VlDyEyOKqdfOKxdYTSBy352y5yalX6YkXM3U LYKgjVDHTDtUxA7nxpaDRmde/qBjOp5IZNTCrv/ut6wNj57w7rz0OvFsj6WGuH6S VgCrDXUCR3qnUKzCQXT2IU3kv2YGJJaBOOM67PfP279dsAsNIYC78q2uDoI42vWw Omq3IGWYRLCR48K3Ql02IWLWaGS8/Ov5ssT14q83ltdcKlU3IfafiXooJ6LHMXWz 39Z6Jyc9ZEq1OeFYaj5mhjR3UanHrEu9TtxBXYTTzA8++0IT6DoiQunuR/VZV63j QQ8uyxfSFLta94/60lECou17hJgAbcJ+r2lO1OGk/MzasMLnHh9dqvb24VDxY+tN 0Lb/E7p1pkY6B904CGk/hoTSCxbVLpU+nK3cpqO59fUqVajHeamrIfz6wPeAtbRr +Xdfh6uQsg==nl6g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

From Soren Stoutner@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 27 18:59:01 2024

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--nextPart3119357.IGA8IIKhJO
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wednesday, June 26, 2024 3:13:38 PM MST Nicholas D Steeves wrote:

Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> writes:

As an additional followup, as the original debian/* files were licensed GPLv2+, if you edit a file you can choose to make your contribution GPLv3+, which would convert the entire file to GPLv3+. If you end up editing all of the files in debian/* at least once, you could convert the entire copyright entry to GPLv3+.

Soren, would you please provide evidence for "the original debian/*
files were licensed GPLv2+"? It looks to me like:

This is based on the statement in the original email.

I start working on adopting web-mode whose previous maintainer Thomas
Koch[1] became MIA (see Bug#1019031). When working on d/copyright, it
turns out that there was only one copyright section that covered "Files:
*" with upstream copyright owners but no separate section for "debian/*"
(see also the d/copyright of the snapshot of version 17.0.2-1[2]).
After checking the upstream copyright[3], I don't see the previous
maintainer in the list of copyright owners, therefore I believe the
current d/copyright is at mistake by covering the content in debian
directory under "Files: *".

When debian/copyright contains a “Files: *” without a separate “Files: debian/*” section, it is
making an explicit statement that the entire debian directory is licenses with the
information listed in “Files: *”. It is possible, even likely, that this was a typo, and doesn’t
represent the intention of the author of the debian/* files, but it is what he wrote down.

Unless there is some other written indication that the author of the original debian/* files
intended a different license, **we have to assume he meant what he wrote** when he
drafted debian/copyright.

Soren

PS. To fully flush out this discussion, this is what was written in debian/copyright:

Files: *
Copyright: 2011-2019 François-Xavier Bois
License: GPL-2+

François-Xavier Bois is the upstream developer. Thomas Koch <[email protected]> is the
package maintainer who wrote debian/copyright. If he had intended to license his
contributions under the GPL-2+, I would have expected that he would have added his name
to the copyright field (or, even better, created a separate debian/* section). But, copyright
law allows an author to transfer their copyright to another party. So, imagine that Thomas
Koch wanted to transfer his copyright for debian/* to François-Xavier Bois. If that was what
he wanted to do, then he could indicate that by putting the following in debian/copyright:

Files: *
Copyright: 2011-2019 François-Xavier Bois
License: GPL-2+

And because that is exactly what he did put in debian/copyright, we have to assume he
meant what he wrote unless we have some other communication from him indicating
otherwise.

--nextPart3119357.IGA8IIKhJO
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>On Wednesday, June 26, 2024 3:13:38 PM MST Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> writes:
> > As an additional followup, as the original debian/* files were licensed
> > GPLv2+, if you edit a file you can choose to make your contribution GPLv3+,
> > which would convert the entire file to GPLv3+.  If you end up editing all
> > of the files in debian/* at least once, you could convert the entire
> > copyright entry to GPLv3+.
> > Soren, would you please provide evidence for "the original debian/*
> files were licensed GPLv2+"?  It looks to me like:
 This is based on the statement in the original email.
 >I start working on adopting web-mode whose previous maintainer Thomas
>Koch[1] became MIA (see Bug#1019031).  When working on d/copyright, it
>turns out that there was only one copyright section that covered "Files:
>*" with upstream copyright owners but no separate section for "debian/*"
>(see also the d/copyright of the snapshot of version 17.0.2-1[2]).
>After checking the upstream copyright[3], I don't see the previous
>maintainer in the list of copyright owners, therefore I believe the
>current d/copyright is at mistake by covering the content in debian
>directory under "Files: *".
 When debian/copyright contains a “Files: *” without a separate “Files: debian/*” section, it is making an explicit statement that the entire
debian directory is licenses with the information listed in “Files: *”.  It is possible, even likely, that this was a typo, and doesn’t represent the intention of the author of the debian/* files, but it is what he wrote down.
 Unless there is some other written indication that the author of the original debian/* files intended a different license, **we have to assume he
meant what he wrote** when he drafted debian/copyright.
 Soren
 PS. To fully flush out this discussion, this is what was written in debian/copyright:
 Files:     *
Copyright: 2011-2019 François-Xavier Bois
License:   GPL-2+
 François-Xavier Bois is the upstream developer.  Thomas Koch <[email protected]> is the package maintainer who wrote debian/copyright. 
If he had intended to license his contributions under the GPL-2+, I would have expected that he would have added his name to the copyright field (or, even better, created a separate debian/* section).  But, copyright law allows an author to
transfer their copyright to another party.  So, imagine that Thomas Koch wanted to transfer his copyright for debian/* to François-Xavier Bois.  If that was what he wanted to do, then he could indicate that by putting the following in debian/
copyright:
 Files:     *
Copyright: 2011-2019 François-Xavier Bois
License:   GPL-2+
 And because that is exactly what he did put in debian/copyright, we have to assume he meant what he wrote unless we have some other communication
from him indicating otherwise.
</body>
</html>
--nextPart3119357.IGA8IIKhJO--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJKVN2yNUZnlcqOI+wufLJ66wtgMFAmZ+GOUACgkQwufLJ66w tgPaXg//dj8yKqe4kNF+eEyABg1sFbIE8EiUmTd3pDi5JkbRafP/0sGaNs1StH31 yJ886l8gWUGCR8LaZ+WX07+UbMaf4WkOmOA1MudIA0CvlzSUclxmWxlVvgfBqRFe lMnNRMQ1joPOgx+2RBMokZjyjRRH8gJ/NRjLbHxLvAyOiIFkFkhm8Vfyc3J1WU5g Vju1R+qUeWpXqfhcm/ghJ21EE/JUoP+yXCWGGq/UhyQ80ivOQh1HqIhN6RkR4WWf mCTl9qtMub57UjeDbaGeOgsM/Wcftn23IF98y6pBwBe2E5wuUoCOaImrElRgqg13 rB8NYf2MvjV62wSLlNNjguXzHt737thCynlLcQR97xfKvQAr2itOCls7dcLU57qc AKN/OBMnmZOI9BdvnIy2bul5xWbogCs5pQgyRkvjAdIp1d3YJO5BXn/wDSae07n1 gBol0INVPY/E21/6lt9zvSojTgMwyZ65fGAkiebOruZRGLHCo0BkJ88nmFy/omI/ 1Tq6X+yHW2CHf09AoGWO3N50GpYt0B7p9p4tw5IcyTL6ymNh4zYJAqjYox1zHpox 1BkCxMFP/dAzj08oc+iV4VwkYZudCayBadaOf9MpUtKfnRAJS/HOLkFqe4BA6XPW gniCSS/IASBDnIuUZW/ZitiI7ItspUIhxqfAwvO86mnlyFZ+0WA=
=M+z9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

From Soren Stoutner@21:1/5 to All on Thu Jun 27 22:06:25 2024

Copy: [email protected] (Xiyue Deng)

Xiyue,

On Thursday, June 27, 2024 9:50:18 PM MST Xiyue Deng wrote:

Thanks for your reply. I agree it is important to clear this situation.
I think regardless of how the current situation should be interpreted, contacting Thomas for confirmation about licensing his packaging work
under a GPL compatible license (preferably the same license) would be a
good step forward. I'll try to open a bug and initiate from there.

That is by far the preferred solution.

Also I have a few questions to help myself understand the situation.
I'd like to have the following assumption: I intend to believe that when Thomas worked on packaging web-mode, he probably forgot to add the
copyright justification for `debian/*' by mistake, as we see that he did
it for the package lsp-treemacs[1]. Now, as the upstream uses GPL (v2 initially, upgraded to v3 later), it requires that all derivative works should be covered by the same license, so AIUI the packaging work should
be covered by GPL by default, but without a clear copyright holder.
With the current "Files: *" wildcard, it should cover the derivative
work under `debian/' (though by mistake). So my question is: does that really make this code not DFSG-free?

If we are not able to get a response from Thomas (and David), I think there is enough information to create the following debian/copyright entry:

Files: debian/*
Copyright: 2019-2020 Thomas Koch <[email protected]>
2019 David Bremner <[email protected]>
License: GPL-2+

The GPL-2+ license comes from the existing debian/copyright file[1], which states that all files are under the GPL-2+. The copyright holders come from the changelog[2], and is a list of everyone who edited files in debian/*.

[1] https://sources.debian.org/src/web-mode/17.0.2-1/debian/copyright/
[2] https://sources.debian.org/src/web-mode/17.0.2-1/debian/changelog/

--
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJKVN2yNUZnlcqOI+wufLJ66wtgMFAmZ+RNEACgkQwufLJ66w tgOZghAAro/j+lGjPTyJCOFiiYY6/eplGdhmJy+TlvYWTZ51VDpXwaR2pjBgIcl2 y+vB7N71KPXnJtW/ACSpG1/ETcfgidotmxUa+neklsbQQ9xvCiZS8f55SIm6GVIE XoduhUR0e6jhl4vZr+I8Be2IUEw2/IwGQtFQ3z8TEculTzlaTHN3jPPxOBdEV3nJ 6noHHbK5/yuCHG3ztv8pyZl9pZbKKqtj1rHES8Jj6RbM0bdKFTeQFhw62xKCpg8I G4f2wmlYU4zsJjFMwo/NmI3e27ObxV+vHLAZMNlIjf1dlg3bOUL/VYxX7YMa4Nnc FsqrRB6Bg/L6pvj9EP5FfnbAiTfRgxNtNlqUw8gnFsaGw2bbel/7RJHhMSS5YpK5 g2iPEvKKt95sevlFerxJxYal96HYUq8vwRQ4h7zN3HGjdOp208+6dlFAAHsbJh/q nZxEWfvouem4RwcWXBgi+9fU8VbiwLwUQDGCfvhw27upxeLPy/qTNK//zxMZkGoY IYLN9N2LxGHvp6dVvaSZXBFUmKO32siquyTIEjiMunRdz5K+8urv3H3JMuqHdoQX /YDvvufKcdrc5ShPQJLj8lrPAe+IkVQOu7cIrlLFkz1Xi4rTcnPKunHqhG9hPutb IfAX4apKHkC4MuIpLVVT9Rf3foOGmfdbR8l+5jnDcoPt8wQvf0Q=
=uIVw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

From Nicholas D Steeves@21:1/5 to Soren Stoutner on Tue Jul 2 23:10:03 2024

Hello,

Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> writes:

On Wednesday, June 26, 2024 3:13:38 PM MST Nicholas D Steeves wrote:

Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> writes:

When debian/copyright contains a “Files: *” without a separate “Files: debian/*” section, it is
making an explicit statement that the entire debian directory is licenses with the
information listed in “Files: *”. It is possible, even likely, that this was a typo, and doesn’t
represent the intention of the author of the debian/* files, but it is what he wrote down.

If "it is possible, even likely, that it is a typo", intention cannot be inferred, and due diligence and goodwill need to be demonstrated before proceeding; this is why we contact the people involved in such cases.

Unless there is some other written indication that the author of the original debian/* files
intended a different license, **we have to assume he meant what he wrote** when he
drafted debian/copyright.

This is a conclusion of convenience, not one of necessity. Legal
battles cost money--even stupid and self-evident ones like trademarks
where there was already prior art. Our upstream copyright statements
are one of convenience, but our debian/* statements are actual.

Soren

PS. To fully flush out this discussion, this is what was written in debian/copyright:

Files: *
Copyright: 2011-2019 François-Xavier Bois
License: GPL-2+

François-Xavier Bois is the upstream developer. Thomas Koch <[email protected]> is the
package maintainer who wrote debian/copyright. If he had intended to license his
contributions under the GPL-2+, I would have expected that he would have added his name
to the copyright field (or, even better, created a separate debian/* section). But, copyright
law allows an author to transfer their copyright to another party.

I agree, but this is not without pitfalls and ambiguities, particularly
when looking at international cases.

So, imagine that Thomas
Koch wanted to transfer his copyright for debian/* to François-Xavier Bois. If that was what
he wanted to do, then he could indicate that by putting the following in debian/copyright:

Files: *
Copyright: 2011-2019 François-Xavier Bois
License: GPL-2+

Comment: This is what the DEP5 comment field is for, and where the
intention to assign copyright may be unambiguously declared.
Alternatively, the author could say here that the work does not meet
the threshold for originality necessary for copyright to occur.
Alternatively, a debian/* "License: CC0" could have been declared as an
"I don't care what you do with this" statement.

And because that is exactly what he did put in debian/copyright, we have to assume he
meant what he wrote unless we have some other communication from him indicating
otherwise.

because -> therefore is neither valid nor true.

All this aside, I think we can agree that it is wrong to write copyright statements on behalf of other people without their knowledge or consent;
this was primarily why I sent my mentee here. I'm also surprised that
no one mentioned that the longer the list of copyright holders, the
harder it is to ever change to a potentially better license (eg: The
Linux kernel is likely to remain GPL-2-only forever, unless rewritten).

Regards,
Nicholas

--=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQJEBAEBCgAuFiEE4qYmHjkArtfNxmcIWogwR199EGEFAmaEai0QHHN0ZW5AZGVi aWFuLm9yZwAKCRBaiDBHX30QYRO+D/44ZvYP0E29pq/or6KspuJ6QgdDHbB6tllG yyMnN6e8Xp4HDAATRzS5vi/HSoYojFZtl1Wi0FJlrnhEAPIeY0rxgrkHAH3eTmeO ptFXmqurlQbaZUqiHbkkjHcI1isy8dKCbTDWbrfXJ4QhiAwx4FD7euaCmfJ3u1Iw kOZHIjxDXs0TKnuM/BsR1DOcG70XnbeyUTUT3PNhOFLlaI1f0RZ/ijSZK54iilK5 fWcBAETlCD0kRwgG/Iruq8c9i20U6eAfPm+UGFztd+XakD5BiTEOVWtbC/AwiIDe PdwawtUky/80Om8bM8E/h9e0keCz3+4zSW+dMnC9ix4D3VI8JR4HH1c4fFVda9n6 oRt2TyKZXiJWU8Y9Mx67jGY/ntvbokp+/Rs23KQVw1ZWeh8cmFgLbQmhRmljXnw2 CVH2rZA2ZNsuTBXqzMiE8q1amqFxXhNkn6BFTwqrigsuqBGKfOMUUsjeazj7yqVg oHZos4RBXdSf8yZiV+wnfbkRgri81WdMjBPk8J/OY138G+Vjk9QnXXIr7pAt/NUQ 3nS3WRQSv2ynxN3v+5/7UyUIr2L0Bxh5Ab0V3dJrAdGuX+HPqap8ETXnJEXrEVzU AGy70P+WgSAq7bR6WEdfDuq+df0kWXXmeDyk+CYJcMr/nk1bRcPq+XZy8jx61ZWL
8EOe+lpKRA=<Nb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

From Soren Stoutner@21:1/5 to Xiyue Deng on Tue Jul 2 15:36:01 2024

Copy: [email protected]

Xiyue,

On Tuesday, July 2, 2024 2:31:47 PM MST Xiyue Deng wrote:

Actually I think this was the case for web-mode given Thomas' response
in [1]. Also, when I asked in #debian-mentors, more people share the
same view and they also choose not to add a separate license clause for "File: debian/*" as a result. I think that suggests that omitting it
may be a common practice, and if that is common enough, it could be considered intentional.

Having read Thomas’ response in the bug report, I can tell you that his opinions about copyright (that is it not important, and that Debian shouldn’t
be so worried about it) does not reflect the general consensus in the Debian community.

I don’t have a conclusive answer as to how many packages do not have an explicit debian/* entry in their copyright file, but my personal experience is that it is not common. I can’t think of a single package, besides this one, that does not have it. Also, I can’t imagine you would find anyone on Mentors
who would be willing to sponsor a package without an explicit debian/* copyright entry.

Despite whatever might be argued to the contrary as to how copyrightable the contents of debian/* are, the consensus of the Debian community is that they are copyrightable and that the copyright and licensing information should be explicitly stated.

--
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJKVN2yNUZnlcqOI+wufLJ66wtgMFAmaEgNEACgkQwufLJ66w tgNf3g/+MGhPjbsoKDlnuFJ5WAa/iORBM7QKKZ2WQWMHsSGJyDkR2ZfpRYwoi/jM +ExbWyNBSCp4hNT3MdytlRSEGci2g2OPD5PhhU/AAasqJLYrPy2bjzx0Zv8jctYg 82LUZqQEcxvqtSde4BR4bz8TY+28Z9f9msfxp9uqmtIOkz+iA6AGwxNsodwKEyhw Jq4DmM0z4eOjy08e9jxhFV5WjAZBUTkUrGoWXVyMH78jpxC4R36oXzAt3aw0kzIC twy1GRONmtwvHRCk+7AAsSQvRXd/GV0o6wfhJiCjjlznYZt4Dg6wBMConk45vmLt MtDXsq/xrGdWjj3gP+QD37kkr7RnKLcCxzNtJW4F0b1t/3Ylm2ZPk95HTH4xBeRx XHPehl/iKTloGvF3oGe5OiPVLEAtFlr9tJeXrwDuwCmZhWt1SiINram59jTqiSDd dwUlH/HjtQTZwvVwLWKwaQ2ZNSGIgwAJuTcKy/EcC3VSweM7NwLjgTD9mxQOh4Vp gwyNqQPp4yC3T8l6bL+bxe58jTuFkG2Ik4oPax8Qq/hqxYnefNw9XBpIb3KHmotH Z96GPUC8Cy5l1+o+scvNxTKYlr0jL0uQsCAuGx0EUFS5H8rFhSnQvO3PLVyP8/qy RsmSNYi/herdbt9157pf231kwCXc36vjclDz6p1r+tJ6ruuK/So=
=K7dl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Who's Online

System Info

Sysop:	Keyop
Location:	Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK
Users:	715
Nodes:	16 (2 / 14)
Uptime:	11:06:48
Calls:	12,100
Files:	15,003
Messages:	6,517,992

Re: Missing copyright clause of debian directory

Who's Online

System Info