Re: Is Packaging Copyrightable (was: is copyleft packaging bad for Debian?)

Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> Tue, 03 Feb 2026 09:47:44 -0700

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.project
Organization	Debian
Message-ID	<5645087.1IzOArtZ34@soren-desktop>

On Tuesday, February 3, 2026 6:16:46 AM Mountain Standard Time Jonas 
Smedegaard wrote:
> Hi Soren,
> 
> Quoting Soren Stoutner (2026-02-02 20:04:57)
> 
> > On Monday, February 2, 2026 11:43:34 AM Mountain Standard Time Jonas
> > 
> > Smedegaard wrote:
> > > Related to that, I now (since yesterday) add the following section to
> > > the debian/copyright file of packages that I maintain:
> > > 
> > > Files: debian/patches/*
> > > Copyright: None
> > > License: None
> > > 
> > > Comment:
> > >  Patches are generally assumed not copyright-protected by default.
> > >  Please list any patch with copyright claims separately.
> > 
> > As I just wrote in a separate email, I disagree strongly with the
> > idea that Debian packaging is not copyrightable.  I do not think that
> > any packages with the above debian/copyright entry should be allowed
> > in Debian.
> 
> I read your previous email and I fully agree with you on that, but I
> disagree with your conclusion (second sentence of your above).
> 
> For the record: I disagree strongly with the idea that Debian packaging
> is *in general* is not copyrightable.
> 
> The reason I disagree with your conclusion has to do with a work
> consisting of multiple parts, where some parts may be both easily
> identifiable and also not in itself be copyrightable. Debian packaging
> consist of such a subset, which has a third feature of being
> potentially upstreamable: patches to upstream source.
> 
> (please see my response to Russ for more details on that reasoning)
> 
> Initially I talked about Debian packaging, but then I shifted to talk
> more narrowly about the subset of "debian/patches*", and that is what
> you quoted. Your position I fully agree with, but I am unsure if you
> really mean that it holds true also for debian/patches as a subset on
> its own - and I suspect that I would disagree with such a position.
> 
> Do you insist so very strongly that *patches* are not copyrightable?

Not all patches are the same.  I agree that there are some that would not pass 
the copyrightable test.  But, in general, I strongly believe that *most* 
patches are copyrightable because they, generally, require some form of 
creative work.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)