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
signature.asc
Description: signature
