If the packaging and the upstream source have different licenses, I wonder what is the license on the resulting package -- both source and binary?
For the source -- GPL permits "mere aggregation" of GPL and non-GPL code in the same medium. But since the packaging is meant to work with the upstream source, and is useless without it, I'm skeptic that they could be considered "merely aggregated". So, there is at least some ground for claiming that the GPL license of the packaging must extend to the whole source package. This argument seems even stronger for the binary. The binary is generated from the upstream source and the packaging working together, so it is most clearly not a "mere aggregation". I suppose that the more "absorbing" license would prevail, that is, the binary must be licensed under the GPL. And what if the upstream license is incompatible with the GPL? In that case it seems that the package would be *undistributable*. That is, unless we adopt the view that packaging isn't copyrightable -- but if it isn't, how does it make sense to stick a license on it? Thus, I agree that the best course of action is likely to release the packaging under the same license as the upstream source. Gerardo
