* Maykel Moya <mm...@mmoya.org>, 2012-11-09, 13:44:
I'd advise you not to use a more restrictive license than upstream uses.
Even in the case of the more restrictive license applying only to
debian/* work? Could you/someone elaborate a little the implications of
this (link to fine documentation is welcomed)?
I couldn't find anything better than this (and I'm too lazy to elaborate
in my own words :P):
http://upsilon.cc/~zack/blog/posts/2012/02/gpl_d_debian_software_skew/
"[...] I don't have any issue with packaging in general being release
under a different license, because most of it does not get linked or
otherwise combined with upstream code. What worries me is that a
different packaging license might induce unexpected license mixtures
unless the maintainer is very careful. For one thing, debian/patches/
should not be under a different license than upstream software; doing so
is dangerous in terms of license incompatibilities and in most cases
would also make it very hard if not impossible to push the patch
upstream. But that's not the only case, as there might be other
Debian-specific code generated during build that might end up being
loaded by upstream code."
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121109133345.ga6...@jwilk.net
