1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.LEGAL

  • Question about BuSL / transform-on-time licenses

    From Joe Brockmeier@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 29 21:00:01 2024
    Hi all,

    The Fedora Project is discussing how to properly represent code that
    was originally licensed under the Business Source License (BuSL) and
    other licenses that transform on time. [1]

    Specifically - let's say there's a project that uses the Business
    Source License (BuSL) and is supposed to convert to GPL after N years. Obviously, the GPL is an acceptable license for Debian - but what steps
    would be required to ensure the entire codebase had converted so that
    no parts would still be under BuSL?

    I'm wondering if the Debian Project has a position on this that's
    documented somewhere, or if this has come up yet? I'm specifically
    interested in how the project would address risk / confirm that the
    whole codebase had transformed or if Debian would avoid a (formerly)
    BuSL licensed project entirely. [2]

    I'd skimmed through the archives but haven't found anything - which
    doesn't mean it does not exist, I may just have failed in my searching.

    [1] https://lwn.net/ml/fedora-legal/CALC7GWw7F5Bz_+5GTGW1+3xz1DZg5RLn=Bxi-r7Rt_x0UqNAow@mail.gmail.com/

    [2] https://lwn.net/ml/fedora-legal/CAC1cPGztsUD5D5xo4aUKpgypwVZ+rzE_PZVnMNEb-_pkGg+Mqg@mail.gmail.com/

    --
    Joe Brockmeier | Editor, LWN | [email protected] | https://lwn.net

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sam Hartman@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 7 01:00:01 2024
    "Joe" == Joe Brockmeier <[email protected]> writes:

    Joe> Hi all, The Fedora Project is discussing how to properly
    Joe> represent code that was originally licensed under the Business
    Joe> Source License (BuSL) and other licenses that transform on
    Joe> time. [1]

    Joe> Specifically - let's say there's a project that uses the
    Joe> Business Source License (BuSL) and is supposed to convert to
    Joe> GPL after N years. Obviously, the GPL is an acceptable license
    Joe> for Debian - but what steps would be required to ensure the
    Joe> entire codebase had converted so that no parts would still be
    Joe> under BuSL?

    Stuff like this is why only Debian Developers can sign uploads that go
    through new.

    1) Some DD signs the package and explains in debian/copyright why they
    believe it is under a free license.

    2) They probably explain why they believe we are going to be able to
    provide security support if new upstream development is under a non-free license. This may be an easy question to answer if we are packaging a
    fork where ongoing development is GPL.

    3) They sign and upload.

    4) The fptmaster team member reviewing the package considers their
    explanation as to why they believe the package is free. The ftpmaster
    agrees and accepts it into Debian or disagrees and rejects.

    For some packages, this might be a really easy review.
    For example if it is packaging a git repo and we can show that the
    latest commit under the business license is old enough and all future
    commits have been licensed under GPL.
    (There's always the possibility that someone cross-copied code
    incorrectly or something, but that's always true.)
    In other cases it might be a very difficult review.

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

    iHUEARYIAB0WIQSj2jRwbAdKzGY/4uAsbEw8qDeGdAUCZrKqNgAKCRAsbEw8qDeG dPlPAQDoDn51UXfkjc6iyYyIwD3vj+A7p8IBgx1T66L7ZBMDjgD/apkK0qWBmt3u eriDSUIVZjAofrGJc35oEbf+uXAInQY=
    =/MPF
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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