On Wed, Jun 03, 2026 at 02:20:45PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I merged several licenses into one (LGPLv2+, GPLv2+, GPLv3+) into GPLv3+ because upstream licensing for 'globalplatform' was inconsistent, and was told by DFSG team to not merge things but to provide all upstream copyright notices and license headers. Working out the mess (further complicated by OpenSSL exceptions) is still in progress together with upstream. I'm not sure this preference in Debian is documented fully, and it would be useful to clarify. For simplicity I have had a desire to merge a bunch of (L)GPL licensed code simply as GPLv3+ to save time and reduce complexity, but this doesn't seem permitted. It is legally fine, (L)GPL+ code normally allows consumers to upgrade to latest version and Debian is permitted to use code under a upgraded license.
Who is the upstream of aclocal.m4? Do I REALLY have to talk to people who contributed two lines of code to GNU autotools three decades ago to maintain a simple package in Debianß
This all doesn't help. We need definitive guidelines that package maintainers can adhere to. Maintaining debian/copyright already takes more time than maintaining the actual package, it is impossible to do right, and frankly, I ask myself why I am still maintaining packages for Debian EVERY time I open up an editor in debian/copyright.
At one time, this will be the straw that wil make me me stop doing Debian stuff. Sooner or later. If we don't improve.
Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
