Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 20 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Licensing makes it hard to include in distributions #19
I’d like to package dunst for Debian so that people don’t have to follow a strange tutorial and can enjoy
However, your licensing is a bit problematic :-/. As you might know, beerware is not exactly a license which Debian considers free. Would it be an option for you to provide a clear LICENSE file and use one of the licenses which are already present in your code? For example MIT/X11 from dmenu, or the BSD license from inih.
That’d be great!
a debian package would be great.
My knowledge about licenses and their implications is pretty low, so I don't know if I can just choose one license when there's code under another license as well. If you already know (or have a link handy) whether and how I can do that and what I have to do in order to proper document the license that would be great and make things faster.
edit: with the latest changes I pushed shortly before you wrote, the tutorial isn't necessary anymore. But that doens't change the fact, that I would love to see a debian package :-)
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.Show comment Hide comment
Thanks for your reply.
Since you are the code author, you can chose the license you want to distribute it under.
One accepted way to go is to place a copyright notice in your (!) files, looking like this:
In the file LICENSE you then state:
followed by the text of the BSD license, you can find it at http://code.stapelberg.de/git/i3/tree/LICENSE for example.
It’d make things even more clear if you add a similar notice to other files which are licensed differently (like files you took from dmenu).
Feel free to ask if you still got any questions about this.