[darcs-users] darcs patch: relicenseDarcs.Commands.GZCRCsas BSD3

[Sittampalam, Ganesh]

Trent W. Buck wrote:
> "Sittampalam, Ganesh" <ganesh.sittampalam at credit-suisse.com> writes:
> 
>> which is the main thing that the license exceptions file is trying to
>> document.
> 
> Well, currently it documents what license(s) each contributor is
> prepared to use.  Anyone who then wants to use a module from Darcs' 
> codebase then has to work out which contributors worked on which
> files. 
> 
> It'd be nice if we could also start listing any files where we CAN
> declare a particular license, because all contributors to the file to
> date have agreed to a particular license.  

I would say that the right place to list this information is in the file
itself, because then any new contributions to that file implicitly
follow that licence.
 
>> As far as Debian is concerned, just assuming GPL for the entire
>> codebase is fine (because all the licensing we do have is
>> GPL-compatible). 
> 
> This is not strictly true.  I am required by policy to document the
> license of all work within the upstream tarball.  Even if "they can
> be treated like they are GPLd", this is not relevant.  

All I can see in policy is the statement "Every package must be
accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright and distribution license
in the file /usr/share/doc/package/copyright"
(http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-pkgcopyright
and
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-docs.html#s-copyrightfile).
Is there some other statement that's stricter? I think the distribution
licence for darcs is GPL. 

Ganesh

=============================================================================== 
 Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: 
 http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html 
 ===============================================================================