On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 02:09:44PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 12:51 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:08:20AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>Ok, I updated the debian/copyright and pushed the changes to >git.debian.org. Its ready for re-upload.
>I just wanted to add that the previous condition was legal, LGPL-2.1 >files can be incorporated into a GPL-2 project, so it was correct to >say that the whole project could be used under the GPL-2. It is not >correct to say that the whole library could be used under the >LGPL-2.1 though, only some of the files, if used in isolation.

Legal, yes: The licenses are indeed compatible.

The issue, though, is about Policy compliance: §4.5 requires including "verbatim" copies of licensing - meaning that even if we legally are allowed to relicense under different compatible terms, we limit ourselves to only _reuse_ upstream licensing.

The library as a whole is licensed using GPL-2 by upstream in the LICENSE.txt file. The relicensing was done upstream.

More info is good, no argument there, but rejecting the package seems harsh.

I disagree.  And I suspect that you missed my point:

Debian Policy §4.5 concerns each single piece of code that we redistribute - not upstream groupings of code.

It is perfectly alright for upstream to treat it all as licensed together - but really the individual parts are still licensed (compatible but) differently, and this is what must be documented for Debian redistribution.

...at least as I interpret it, which seems similar to that of ftpmasters. If you disagree with the interpretation of Debian Policy, then you/we should probably move this conversation to a more appropriate list discussing that.

Hope that helps.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to