Re: Missing copyright clause of debian directory

Nicholas D Steeves <[email protected]> Tue, 02 Jul 2024 16:59:24 -0400
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
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
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 857 B)