Hello, (First of all, I'm not the maintainer of a package.)
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 15:24:59 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > > I don't think it's a bug. If source is distributed as GPL-2+, > > you're free to take it as either GPL-2, or any later version. As > > GPL-2 and GPL-3 are incompatible, to link against GPL-2 sources, > > you must take GPL-2+ sources under GPL-2 or you violate the license. > > That said, I think GPL-2 is the best choice here. > debian/copyright is not only about stating the licensing we choose > for our work (the source of packaging and the binary compiled code), > but also about documenting the licensing of upstream parts. The upstream distributes their sources under ‘GPL version 2 or later’, which means that it is either under GPL-2, or GPL-3, or GPL-2+ when it comes to actually using the source. It is therefore correct to state that the license of upstream's code is GPL-2, as it is one of the options upstream gives. Furthermore, if there are other parts of the code are still GPL-2, and they link against code under src/, it'd not be legal to take that source under GPL-3. > Please document upstream licensing. If you _also_ want to document > the resulting combined licensing of the full redistributed work, do > that separately in _addition_ (in the header section, if using DEP-3 > format). My opinion that this is more a nitpicking, under which I mean this is a change that's better to be done, but it definitely doesn't qualify as an RC bug. Closer to wishlist severity, actually. -- Cheers, Andrew
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
