On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 11:37:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > In general, I agree. But there might be cases that are less > clear-cut. For example, if the upgrade from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ is used > to gain permission to combine the work with an AGPL work, especially > if this is done in an “open core” context. Or if the author clearly > intended that uploading the original (GPLv2+) work to someone else's > computer was distribution under the GPLv2 terms, and the GPLv3 upgrade > is used primarily to circumvent that.
I don't understand that. If the author provides written permission to upgrade to a later version but he don't really want people to do that, it looks to me like lying. He should either clarify the cases where the upgrade is not wanted, or avoid writing those permissions at all. > I also think that in general, Debian should try to respect copyright > holders' wishes, even if the project is not required to do so. > Disregarding authors rarely leads to good outcomes. I would want to be respectful, of course, but how can I respect copyright holders' wishes when they say something and want something different instead? I can't read their minds. It's not feasible to ask all authors when there are hundreds (and I don't even consider it fair, it won't pass the desert island). If those unwritten exceptions are common, I've probably violated authors' whises a lot of times already :(
