[darcs-users] darcs patch: relicenseDarcs.Commands.GZCRCsas BSD3
Trent W. Buck
twb at cybersource.com.au
Fri Sep 18 08:58:17 UTC 2009
"Sittampalam, Ganesh" <ganesh.sittampalam at credit-suisse.com> writes:
> 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
>> 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
>> 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.
Fair enough. A lot of our files currently appear to claim they're
GPL-any (with no openssl exception), so I guess the best way to fix what
I'm talking about is to change those declarations where appropriate.
>>> As far as Debian is concerned, just assuming GPL for the entire
>>> codebase is fine (because all the licensing we do have is
>> 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"
> Is there some other statement that's stricter? I think the
> distribution licence for darcs is GPL.
Hm. Maybe working next to a debian-legal weenie is having an osmotic
effect on me...
More information about the darcs-users