Re: Missing copyright clause of debian directory

Xiyue Deng <[email protected]> Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:31:47 -0700
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Nicholas D Steeves <[email protected]> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> 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.

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.

Still, I think it would be good to have a policy or recommendation on
how a DD or DM should do here.  I don't see this addressed in the Debian
Policy or the Debian Developer Manual though.

>  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
>
> [[End of PGP Signed Part]]

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1074413#10

-- 
Xiyue Deng
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 857 B)