Hello Elena, thanks for your comments.
Am Freitag, den 21.11.2014, 13:14 +0100 schrieb Elena ``of Valhalla'': > On 2014-11-21 at 12:33:58 +0100, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: > > > - it's simpler if your packaging has the same license as he upstream > > > code. Here in particular your license (GPL3) is less permissive > > > than upstream's (BSD3) so it can causes problems I guess. > > > > I always use GLP-3+ for debian/* and set the license of debian/patches/* > > to the license of the source file(s). So I don't see any problems. > > Wouldn't that means that the debian package can only be distributed/used > under GPL-3+, and thus e.g. a library can't be linked from / used > in something with a noncompatible license (including GPL-2), even if > the upstream program allowed it? > > (Assuming that there is something copyrightable in debian/ minus > debian/patches/, and for other packages that the upstream license > was compatible with GPL-3+ in the first place) > I think not. The same issue I had some times ago on d-mentors[1][2]. > -- > Elena ``of Valhalla'' > > CU Jörg [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2014/09/msg00631.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2014/10/msg00000.html -- pgp Fingerprint: 7D13 3C60 0A10 DBE1 51F8 EBCB 422B 44B0 BE58 1B6E pgp Key: BE581B6E CAcert Key S/N: 0E:D4:56 Jörg Frings-Fürst D-54526 Niederkail Threema: SYR8SJXB IRC: j_...@freenode.net j_...@oftc.net
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part