[Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#1030840: Bug#1030840: fonts-femkeklaver: relicensing of Debian packaging to 0BSD?

[Gioele Barabucci]

(removed @bugs.d.o)

Thanks Boyuan Yang and Leo Antunes, I committed the relicensing.

To Jonas question:

On 08/02/23 10:02, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Given the trivial amount of packaging now left (a handful of boilerplate
>> code), would you be OK with relicensing it under 0BSD (ISC without
>> attribution, pretty much public domain)?
> 
> Why do you need relicensing of the packaging?
> 
> I ask because I maintain several hundred packages, and am genuinely
> interested in understanding if someone find my packaging style a
> nuisance, and if so, how more specifically.

In general, I do not see GPL-licensed packaging or any other kind of 
packaging style/license as problematic at all. I'm a (A)GPL3 fan myself.

In this specific case (fonts-femkaklaver) we are talking about 4 mostly 
empty and boilerplate files: excluding d/changelog and d/copyright, the 
packaging consists of a total of 26 lines of text, only 5 of which not 
generated by a script (the description).

Probably 26 lines of auto-generated text do not even cross the threshold 
for "copyrightability" in many jurisdictions.

Now, why did I ask for a re-licensing?

My "fear" is that complex-licensed packaging may (_may_) in the future 
turn out to be problematic (see the CC0 issues on Fedora, even if that 
has to with a different aspect) and will need re-licensing, with all the 
issues that that entail. For more complex packages that risk could be 
acceptable (and I believe often is), but IMO a font package composed of 
mostly autogenerated files does not warrant that risk, however little.

Regards,

--
Gioele Barabucci