Re: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian?

On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 14:04, Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi dear fellow Debian developers,
>
>When I package a project for inclusion into Debian, I commonly license
>my packaging work using a copyleft license¹.
>
>I appreciate that upstream authors may have reasons to choose different
>licensing, and am open to relicense non-packaging parts (e.g. patches).
>Sometimes I proactively license patches potential for upstream adoption
>same as upstream, but generally I don't - patches are often arguably
>too small to be copyright-protected, or might contain contributions
>from multiple authors - in short, it is simpler for me to ensure that
>the packaging parts are all DFSG-free than that they are all compliant
>with upstream choice of licensing, and I see no need for the packaging
>part to be compliant with upstream choice of licensing.
>
>My question here is: Am I doing a disservice to Debian? Do Debian
>already have a Policy about this? If not, should we add one?
>
Hi,

afaik we do not have a strict policy / clear wording on this.
While I prefer strong copyleft licenses I *always* license my packaging
under the same license as upstream. This follows the rationale that if I 
had to send a patch upstream, it is under the same license as upstream. 

Similarly, if an upstream commit is clearly licensed as e.g. GPL-3, and 
if I would include that in debian/* while claiming debian/* is 
MIT-licensed,
I would violate the GPL's terms.

best,

werdahias