Quoting Andrew Shadura (2014-01-09 14:34:57)
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:28:05 +0100 (CET) Thorsten Alteholz 
> <deb...@alteholz.de> wrote:
> 
>> as opposed to debian/copyright, which states that the license of all 
>> files is GPLv2, the files in src/* have a license of GPLv2+. Please 
>> update debian/copyright for the new upstream version (1.0.1) 
>> accordingly.
>
> I don't think it's a bug. If source is distributed as GPL-2+, you're 
> free to take it as either GPL-2, or any later version. As GPL-2 and 
> GPL-3 are incompatible, to link against GPL-2 sources, you must take 
> GPL-2+ sources under GPL-2 or you violate the license.
> 
> That said, I think GPL-2 is the best choice here.

debian/copyright is not only about stating the licensing we choose for 
our work (the source of packaging and the binary compiled code), but 
also about documenting the licensing of upstream parts.

Please document upstream licensing.  If you _also_ want to document the 
resulting combined licensing of the full redistributed work, do that 
separately in _addition_ (in the header section, if using DEP-3 format).


 - 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: signature

_______________________________________________
Pkg-osm-maint mailing list
Pkg-osm-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-osm-maint

Reply via email to