Пт 24 авг 2018 @ 17:15 Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name>: >> The point I'd like to focus attention to is licensing of dh-make-elpa. >> Currently, it is licensed under GPL-3+. It is based (and I'd say >> heavily based) on dh-make-perl, which is licensed under GPL-2-only. >> I've asked Sean Whitton about it on IRC and got the following answer: >> >> 23:45 < spwhitton> dogsleg: we don't actually derive code from dh-make-perl >> -- dh-make-perl's code is included as a library. so I think the licensing >> is okay. >> 23:45 < spwhitton> dogsleg: there are very small number of lines that are >> actually copied directly; probably less than copyrightable. > > Please ask participants' permission before quoting from IRC channels > into permanently-recorded formats like the Debian BTS (in this case, I > would have given permission).
Oops, sorry for that! I should be more discreet. >> Second, classes from DhMakePerl are in fact used in DhMakeELPA (as >> base classes): >> >> $ rgrep DhMakePerl >> lib/DhMakeELPA/Config.pm:use base 'DhMakePerl::Config'; >> lib/DhMakeELPA/Command/Packaging.pm:use base >> 'DhMakePerl::Command::Packaging'; > > According to the FSF,[1] the GPLv3 is not compatible with the GPLv2. So > it looks like I am not allowed to derive classes from DhMakePerl and > license the new classes as GPL-3+. > > I've updated d/copyright to license dh-make-elpa under GPL-2 only, since > that's all that is permitted. Thank you, Sean! It makes everything much easier! Regards, Lev
