Re: SWIG license change to GPLv3, wording of debian/copyright?
Hi Charles, On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 08:18:21AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Does anybody think it is wrong to summarize in debian/copyright that SWIG is GPLv3 with parts being under MIT or BSD license instead of putting in a full copy? It is my understanding that GPLv3 is the most restrictive license of the bunch. The GPL adds restrictions but does not cancel the terms of the MIT and BSD licenses, so their requrirement that ‘Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice…’ still fully applies: you have to quote them entirely. Thanks for your feedback. I updated the copyright file and uploaded swig 2.0 minutes ago. Greetings, Torsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100828210859.ga12...@merzeus.obrandt.org
SWIG license change to GPLv3, wording of debian/copyright?
Hi *, I am still working on getting a SWIG 2.0 package out of the door. The least interesting part (for me) is the licensing change. SWIG changed from a mix of BSD/MIT licenses to GPLv3 with version 2.0. I wonder about the wording of debian/copyright. I don't really want to reproduce the full LICENSE-UNIVERSITIES file http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-swig/branches/swig2.0/LICENSE-UNIVERSITIES Instead I would rather refer to common-licenses, but the texts of the license in there do not match word-by-word with BSD/MIT. Does anybody think it is wrong to summarize in debian/copyright that SWIG is GPLv3 with parts being under MIT or BSD license instead of putting in a full copy? It is my understanding that GPLv3 is the most restrictive license of the bunch. Thanks, Torsten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100811212643.ga27...@merzeus.obrandt.org
Re: SWIG license change to GPLv3, wording of debian/copyright?
Le Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:26:43PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff a écrit : http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-swig/branches/swig2.0/LICENSE-UNIVERSITIES Instead I would rather refer to common-licenses, but the texts of the license in there do not match word-by-word with BSD/MIT. Does anybody think it is wrong to summarize in debian/copyright that SWIG is GPLv3 with parts being under MIT or BSD license instead of putting in a full copy? It is my understanding that GPLv3 is the most restrictive license of the bunch. Dear Torsten, The GPL adds restrictions but does not cancel the terms of the MIT and BSD licenses, so their requrirement that ‘Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice…’ still fully applies: you have to quote them entirely. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100811231821.gc24...@merveille.plessy.net
