Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+

Hi, I have a doubt about a situation. The upstream source code is GPL3+. Packaging is a derivative work and I think that it must be GPL. So, GPL-3+, right? Or can the debian/* be GPL-2+? From FSF site[1]: - Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2? No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3,

Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+

Charles and Ian, thanks for explanations. Now, I would like to understand why the packaging isn't a derivative work (when haven't a patch). So, I am thinking that is because Debian distributes, separately, the upstream code (orig.tar.gz) and debian.tar.xz. Is this? But, the .deb is a product of

Re: Upstream GPL-3+ vs debian/* GPL-2+

Thanks all for explanations. This question is clear to me now. Regards, Eriberto -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:

Simple doubt about section to use

Hi, I am reviewing the package lutris (ITP #754129). From upstream[1]: --- Lutris is an open source gaming platform for GNU/Linux. It makes gaming on Linux easier by taking care of managing, installing and providing optimal settings for games. Lutris does not sell games, you have to provide

Upstream pointing to COPYING file in headers

Hi guys, I would like to confirm a situation. In a package that I will sponsor, the upstream points to COPYING file in each header. Here is an example: --- (C) 2007-2009 Lluís Batlle i Rossell Please find the license in the provided COPYING file. --- The provided COPYING file is the

Re: Upstream pointing to COPYING file in headers

Hi Ben, 2015-05-01 22:52 GMT-03:00 Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au: It may be *intended* to grant some license, and that intention may be meaningful if a case is ever heard in court. But as it stands, that text does not IMO inform the recipient what they may and may not do with the

Re: Upstream pointing to COPYING file in headers

2015-05-02 20:40 GMT-03:00 Josue Abarca jmasli...@debian.org: Also note that the final part of GPL 2 section 9 [G1] states: ... If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. I suppose that can

Is mpage DFSG compatible?

Hi guys, I am doing a revision over the orphaned package 'mpage' (in main tree). When migrating the debian/copyright file to 1.0 format, I did a full revision in source code and I found two doubtful situations for me. The first issue is the license used by mpage: * Permission is granted

Is possible relicense from GPL to BSD?

Hi, The distorm3 upstream relicensed the source code from GPL3+ to BSD-4-Clause. I think it is wrong but I didn't found references about it. So, I need opinions about this issue. Regards, Eriberto

Re: Is possible relicense from GPL to BSD?

Thanks Charles. The distorm3 is a dependency for volatility and I am concerned. Cheers, Eriberto 2016-05-31 20:50 GMT-03:00 Charles Plessy : > > if the distorm3 upstream developer fully holds the copyright on the software, > then he can relicense as he wishes. > > However,

Can "rockyou" wordlist be packaged in Debian?

Hi, >From Wikipedia[1]: "Based in San Francisco, California, RockYou was founded in 2005 by Lance Tokuda and Jia Shen. The company's first product, a slide show service, was designed to work as an application widget. Later applications included various forms of voice mail, text and photo

Re: Can "rockyou" wordlist be packaged in Debian?

Hi Ben, Ángel and Paul, Thanks a lot for your reply. I think that it is possible redistribute the wordlist in Debian. Seeing your considerations, is a bit clear to me that this wordlist can be considered as a "regular" dictionary with words and expressions used in now days. It is also a list

Re: Can "rockyou" wordlist be packaged in Debian?

Hi all, Thanks for your opinions. I will drop my idea about to package this wordlist. Thanks! Eriberto 2016-09-22 1:24 GMT-03:00 Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org>: >> Eriberto Mota <eribe...@debian.org> writes: >> >> > However, I will wait more opinions

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-10-29 18:11 GMT-02:00 Ben Finney : > > Because no other DFSG freedoms are granted, those remain reserved to the > copyright holders. > > So a work under this license would be non-free. I agree. I can't see rights for modify the source code. This and other rights must be

configure.in is missing but...

Hi, In #882538, Helmut pointed that outguess[1] has a configure file[2] generated by a missing configure.in. He considers that configure, an interpreted script (shell), has no source code because the following lines: # Generated automatically using autoconf version 2.12 [...] # Any additions

Re: configure.in is missing but...

2017-11-25 2:13 GMT-02:00 Paul Wise : > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > >> Can't you find a copy of the configure.ac somewhere ? If not, you may >> be able to reconstruct one. Skimreading the configure script suggests >> that wouldn't be too hard. Thanks

Tux licensing again

Hi all, I am packaging a software that distribute a Tux image and its license, as shown below: "Permission to use and/or modify this image is granted provided you acknowledge me lew...@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP if someone asks." The original license can be viewed here[1]. This question was

upstream changing from GPL-2+ to GPL-3+ without copyright holders permission

Hi folks, I have a basic doubt. A program called "test" was released by Bob over GPL-2+. This program got contributions from Ana and Chloe. The development was stopped some years later and, now, Ted want continue this development. However, Ted kept the name "test" and changed the licensing to

Is this BSD-3-Clause Variant DFSG-compliant?

Hi folks, Today I found the file test/ftp.y, in btyacc package, using the following license: test/ftp.y: * Copyright (c) 1985, 1988 Regents of the University of California. test/ftp.y- * All rights reserved. test/ftp.y- * test/ftp.y- * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are