That's literally what I said. d/copyright is for source not binary. On May 29, 2015 8:42 AM, "Riley Baird" < bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@bitmessage.ch> wrote:
> > > I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my > > > packages. The package in question is "missfits". It contains a > > > directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark > > > Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel > > > Bertin) and released in the package under GPL-3+. > > > > Upstream authors can't change licensing of any files, under any > > conditions, ever. > > > > If I say a file is GPLv2+, it is forever GPLv2+, even if it's combined > > with a GPLv3 work, in that case the *files* are still GPLv2+, that other > > file is a GPLv3 work, and the *combined work* is distributed under the > > terms of the GPLv3, since it satisfies the license of every file in the > > combined / derived work. > > But there are multiple works being combined into the one file. So some > parts of the file are GPLv2+ and other parts of the file are GPLv3. The > file as a whole can only be distributed under GPLv3. >
