(First of all, I'm not the maintainer of a package.)

On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 15:24:59 +0100
Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:
> > 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.

The upstream distributes their sources under ‘GPL version 2 or later’,
which means that it is either under GPL-2, or GPL-3, or GPL-2+ when it
comes to actually using the source. It is therefore correct to state
that the license of upstream's code is GPL-2, as it is one of the
options upstream gives. Furthermore, if there are other parts of the
code are still GPL-2, and they link against code under src/, it'd not be
legal to take that source under GPL-3.

> 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).

My opinion that this is more a nitpicking, under which I mean this is a
change that's better to be done, but it definitely doesn't qualify as
an RC bug. Closer to wishlist severity, actually.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Pkg-osm-maint mailing list

Reply via email to