Re: software licensed under "GPLv2 or later" and "GPLv3 or later"
Tony Mancill <email@example.com> writes:
> Please cc: me on replies, as I am not subscribed to the list.
Done (I think).
> The upstream README file says that the software is licensed under
> GPLv2 or later, while the comments in the source file indicates that
> it is licensed under GPLv3 or later.
The effective license grant, then, is GPLv3 or later. (GPLv2 is not
possible with that combination.)
> My question is whether there is any discrepancy or need for
> clarification from the upstream author regarding the license before
> the package is submitted to the archive.
You should ask the upstream to alter the README to make it clearer;
that said, the situation you describe is coherent and allows
redistribution in Debian under GPLv3.
\ “If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let |
`\ 'em go, because, man, they're gone.” —Jack Handey |