Re: GPL + question

[Maximilian]

I'm probably wrong, but the code that was originally GPLv2+ remains licensed 
under the GPLv2 *in addition* to the GPLv3 that the overall package is licensed 
under.

The GPLv2 states that:

'if the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it 
and any later version, you have the option of following the terms and 
conditions *either* of that version *or* of any later version published by the 
Free Software Foundation' (my emphasis)

and this seems to imply that the end user can choose which licence suits them.

However, if Emmanuel Bertin's code is specifically licensed as GPLv3 only then 
it needs to be made clear that this is the case where applicable - the fact 
that this code is GPLv3 only ought not affect the fact that the other original 
files may be GPLv2+.

As said above I'm probably wrong, but at least that's the way I see it!


Regards,
Max

On 29 May 2015 08:32, Ole Streicher oleb...@debian.org wrote:

 Hi, 

 I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my 
 packages. The package in question is missfits. It contains a 
 directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark 
 Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel 
 Bertin) and released in the package under GPL-3+. 

 debian/copyright currently mentions only GPL-3+ for the whole package. 

 The ftp-master now asked me to add GPL-2+ for these files to 
 debian/copyright. But I think that this would be wrong, since the files 
 under src/wcs are not distributable under GPL-2+ (because they contain 
 GPL-3+ code from Emmanuel Bertin). 

 Do I miss an important point here? 

 Best regards 

 Ole 


 -- 
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org 
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org 
 Archive: https://lists.debian.org/ytzmw0nn8jn@news.ole.ath.cx 

Creative Commons CC0

[Maximilian Gaß]

Hello d-legal,

with the recent release of CC0 by Creative Commons, I wonder what your
opinions on it are about using this for software that might be included in
Debian?

Regards,
Max


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

DFSG compatibility of the Poetic License

[Maximilian Gaß]

I recently discovered the Poetic License:

This work ‘as-is’ we provide.
No warranty express or implied.
We’ve done our best,
to debug and test.
Liability for damages denied.

Permission is granted hereby,
to copy, share, and modify.
Use as is fit,
free or for profit.
These rights, on this notice, rely.

http://genaud.net/2005/10/poetic-license/

I ponder using this license for my own stuff, but I'd like to hear some
opinions from debian-legal before doing it.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Licence question

[Maximilian Reiss]

I intend to package the liquid kde theme by mosfet. 
(www.mosfet.org/liquid.html).
The Licence problem is, that this theme is under qpl, but is linked against 
kdelibs (gpl). I was told that this is a problem. Is there any chance to get 
it into debian?
I heard there is a way if I ask the copyright owner of the gpl software if it 
is ok to link it. Is this right?
Thanks in advance.

Maximilian Reiß