On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Don Armstrong wrote: > > Regardless, you just express the full set of licenses in > > debian/copyright. The effective set of licenses of the binary isn't > > something you have to deal with (luckily). > > The FSF would contradict. If Debian links GPLv2+ libisoburn with > GPLv3+ libreadline and distributes the result, then this result must > be GPLv3+.
The result must satisfy the requirements of GPL-3+ when distributed. It does not change the actual license of the source code of libisoburn or libreadline, though. [...] > So i have meanwhile decided to write in debian/copyright: > > License: GPL-3 > The source code is GPL-2-or-later. By linking with GPL-3 licensed > libreadline.so.6 the resulting binaries become GPL-3 licensed, too. > On Debian systems the full text of the GNU General Public License can > be found in the /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3 file. This is wrong. The license of the source code of libisoburn is GPL-2+. The license of the resultant binary is effectively the intersection of all of the terms of the appropriate licenses, which should just be GPL-3+. [Modulo local copyright law, of course.] debian/copyright documents the license of the source code, not license the resultant binary. [Obviously, there are requirements on the resultant binary, but debian/copyright is not the place to document them.] -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com The carbon footprint of a single human being is enormous. If you think about it, your honour, I'm an environmentalist. -- a softer world #283 http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=283
