Control: severity -1 minor Am 06.10.21 um 22:30 schrieb Rhonda D'Vine: > Hi again. > > * Bastian Germann <bastiangerm...@fishpost.de> [2021-10-06 23:58:41 CEST]: >> Am 06.10.21 um 21:34 schrieb Rhonda D'Vine: >>> Are you reading the debian/copyright file correct? Yes, it says >>> "License: GPL-2" but AIUI that is just a reference indicator, and the >>> long paragraph below that is the relevant one. And that clearly states >>> "or later", and it's the only explenation for the GPL-2 tag in there. >> >> Where in the upstream source do you take the "or later" clause from? >> There are some files that have this in the license header but these are >> all files that stem from other projects, e.g. the getopt* files. >> >> The original abook files do not specify a GPL version in their headers >> and the README says: >> >> "All files in this distribution are released under GNU GENERAL PUBLIC >> LICENSE. See COPYING for details." > > Right. It doesn't specify a version. And this is the core point, and > the reference to the COPYING file is clear on that grounds too. > >> Since COPYING is version 2 there is no reason to assume an "or later" >> clause applies to the project in its entirety. > > The COPYING file specifically does have the "or later" clause in it.
The COPYING file is the standard GPLv2. Yes, in the license template at the end it specifies "or later" but that is a suggestion how to apply the license. In the TERMS AND CONDITIONS no. 9, it says : "If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." So it does not specify "or later" but also no version. Combined with the few imported files that are GPL-2+, it is fair to say, the complete program is GPL-2+. But that is not a trivial derivation. > >>> I understand where you are coming from, and I agree, it can be improved >>> to directly read GPL-2+ -- but to the best of my understanding the >>> copyright file is clear on that. >> >> The outcome should be removing "or later", not adding "+". > > So your preferred outcome is to misinterpret what is in there and > interpret it as being an issue without knowing the upstream > developer(s), while things speak about something different, and always > have? What is your agenda with this? No specific agenda, just keeping Debian on the legally distributable side. So, just keep the libreadline.
