Am Montag, den 22.02.2016, 09:10 +0100 schrieb Daniel Pocock: DISCLAIMER: IANAL.
> On 21/02/16 11:13, Tobias Frost wrote: > > Am Samstag, den 20.02.2016, 19:41 +0100 schrieb Daniel Pocock: > > > Package: lintian > > > Version: 2.5.30+deb8u4 > > > X-Debbugs-cc: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > Let's say that debian/copyright contains the following: > > > > > > > > > > > > Files: foo > > > Copyright: 2016, Mr Foo > > > License: GPL-2 > > > > > > Files: bar > > > Copyright: 2016, Mr Bar > > > License: GPL-2+ > > > > > > License: GPL-2 > > > On Debian systems, the complete text of the GNU General > > > Public License version 2 can be found in > > > "/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lintian will complain with a warning: > > > > > > W: libfoobar source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright > > > gpl- > > > 2+ > > > (paragraph at line X) > > > > > > > > > Should lintian ignore the '+' suffix when determining if a > > > License > > > paragraph exists? > > > > > > > Well, IMHO lintian is right here. > > > > You'll need also the "license grant", your License: paragraph'd be > > incomplete without it. > > And the license grant is the one that actually grants the "or later > > option", not the license text itself in /usr/share/common-licenses > > > > There is some ambiguity there, depending on the wording of different > licenses. > > Consider the GPL 2 and 3, here they are: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt > > Both contain a sample license grant at the bottom under the heading > "How > to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" > > If somebody copies the license grant into their README or source code > then it is clear they are granting a GPL-[23] "or later" license. > > If somebody just drops one of those two files into their repository > but > does not copy the text of the example license grant into any other > file, > can we assume they mean "or later"? Or do we have to assume the most > restrictive case, that they only authorize that specific version? I guess this is tricky... Only placing a license file in the repo is technically not a license grant, that would mean "all rights reserved, period". However, if there is enough reason to believe that by placing it into the repo the copyright holder *wants* to apply the license, one can probably assume so too. (In doubt, the copyright holder should be asked) > The last sentence in clause 9 only resolves ambiguity for the case > where > their license grant is present but does not specify a version, e.g. > source code including "This file is GPL licensed." It does not > resolve > the problem for code that includes a copy of the GPL file without a > grant statement. As you said, it depends on the license grant. If it simply said "This is under the GPL", this is a grant, in this case you have the choice of which one (GPL2 §9; GPL3 §14), as you'd "not specify a version number of this License" Otherwise, if there is a version given, the "or later" needs to be stated explictly. (I think that can be read from §9 GPL 2.0; also copyright defaults to "all rights reserved", extras must be explictly granted) I think, in the case where you can without reasonable doubt say that the work is covered by the GPL but there is no grant, you can also assume the "any version" clause -- as technically there is no version number in the license ... In course, in doubt it is always better to ask the copyright owner about it... So I guess it just boils down to the usual thing: encourage upstream authors to be very clear in their licensing, best having per-file license-headers and in doubt ask them what they've intended. -- tobi >
