Scripsit Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Again, unfortunately, the wording I proposed could be interpreted to
> mean that the author only wishes Debian, and not those receiving
> software distributed by Debian, to have access to the code under the
> GPL. To my understanding, this is not what the author intended.
I agree with that (both sentences).
> Copyright:
>
> hp2pbm is specially licensed to the Debian project under the terms of
> the GPL. Commercial entities wishing to license hp2pbm under
> different terms must receive separate permission from the author.
My understanding is that what this wording was meant to communicate is
| Copyright:
|
| Program X is covered by the GPL (blah blah standard Debian blurp
| about finding the master copy of the GPL).
|
| Note that if you look at the upstream site you'll find a different,
| non-free, license. That does not mean that we're lying when we
| say this is GPL'ed: we did talk to the author and got his OK
| to change the license to GPL. (Due to the section 6 of the GPL
| this OK automatically covers anyone downstream from us, too).
right?
I think that should be perfectly fine for main. Effectively this sets
up a dual-license scheme, and as long as one of the licenses is free
all is well.
I don't think the part about needing a separate permission from
the author to use a different license needs to be in the copyright
file - that goes for every GPL'ed package.
--
Henning Makholm "Det er sympatisk du håner dig selv. Fuldt
berettiget. Men det gør dig ikke til en kristen."
