El 29/04/16 a las 18:31, Adam Borowski escribió: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:45:27PM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: >>> Fixed. Is possible to have upstream => gpl2 and debian/* => gpl3, true? >> >> this means that it will be impossible to forward patches upstream without >> manually >> relicensing them. >> >> I personally don't prefer, because only the author of each patch will be >> able to forward >> it upstream. > > It's worse: as the package is built from sources under mutually conflicting > licenses, it is indistributable. > > As both the packaging and the only patch come exclusively from you, I'd > simply change the license for debian/* to GPL-2+ (but, see below). > >> licensecheck * >> shows the license of some files as GPL-2+ not GPL-2 > > It looks like there's a mismatch: > > README says: > # Copyright 2003 by Alexander K.nig - a...@lisas.de > # License: GPL V2 - see the file COPYING > (COPYING is the text of GPL-2) > > but, aseqjoy.c says: > # or (at your option) any later version. > > Too bad, while it's the only C source, there's one more copyrightable file, > aseqjoy.1.in, which doesn't embed a license statement and thus is covered by > the README. > > So unless you contact the author or rewrite the manpage, the effective > license is GPL-2 only. > hi both, thanks to help me.
if i understand, if i change the debian/* to GPL-2+ will solved only the patches issues? and still have problem with the upstream man file? my own patch just is trivial and solve spell lintian warning only. i just send a email to the upstream author with this comments also. will need to release a new tarball with this changes? Thanks. -- Fernando Toledo Dock Sud BBS http://bbs.docksud.com.ar telnet://bbs.docksud.com.ar
