On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 09:31:50PM -0300, Fernando Toledo wrote: > El 29/04/16 a las 18:31, Adam Borowski escribió: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:45:27PM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > >> licensecheck * > >> shows the license of some files as GPL-2+ not GPL-2 > > > > It looks like there's a mismatch: > > > > README says: > > # Copyright 2003 by Alexander K.nig - a...@lisas.de > > # License: GPL V2 - see the file COPYING > > (COPYING is the text of GPL-2) > > > > but, aseqjoy.c says: > > # or (at your option) any later version. > > > > Too bad, while it's the only C source, there's one more copyrightable file, > > aseqjoy.1.in, which doesn't embed a license statement and thus is covered by > > the README. > > > > So unless you contact the author or rewrite the manpage, the effective > > license is GPL-2 only. > > > > if i understand, if i change the debian/* to GPL-2+ will solved only the > patches issues? and still have problem with the upstream man file? > my own patch just is trivial and solve spell lintian warning only.
GPL-2 is compatible with GPL-2+, so that's enough. > i just send a email to the upstream author with this comments also. > will need to release a new tarball with this changes? Clarifying the license would be nice, but is not required: while it's not sure what the author meant, there is one safe option: assuming GPL-2. Of course, that means you can't combine it with GPL-3 patches or packaging. Unless you hear back from the author soon, I'd recommend using GPL-2+ for the packaging. That's compatible with GPL-2, GPL-3, GPL-3+, or even future GPL-4 or GPL-65535. -- A tit a day keeps the vet away.