Tony Mancill <[email protected]> writes: > Please cc: me on replies, as I am not subscribed to the list.
Done (I think). > The upstream README file says that the software is licensed under > GPLv2 or later, while the comments in the source file indicates that > it is licensed under GPLv3 or later. The effective license grant, then, is GPLv3 or later. (GPLv2 is not possible with that combination.) > My question is whether there is any discrepancy or need for > clarification from the upstream author regarding the license before > the package is submitted to the archive. You should ask the upstream to alter the README to make it clearer; that said, the situation you describe is coherent and allows redistribution in Debian under GPLv3. -- \ “If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let | `\ 'em go, because, man, they're gone.” —Jack Handey | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
