Re: Copyright question: GPL patches for non-GPL packages

[joost@rulcmc.leidenuniv.nl (joost witteveen)]

> Wait a moment. That means we're not allowed to add GPLed patches to
> non-free packages. But wouldn't that mean that the gs-aladding package
> as it is right now is illegal? The upstream source is two-fold: the
> Aladdin source and two files under GPL. So that's the reason why they
> distribute it seperately. But then we shouldn't distribute it as it is
> right now.
> 
> Marco, what can we do now? Go back to the GNU version?

Or: 

  1 continue to ignore the issue. (Uhm, sorry, I meant start
    a thread about it, write 100 articles and then ignore the issue)
  2 package a "gs-aladdin-gnulib" package, that puts the code of the
    GNU source files in a library. At gs-aladdin build time we would
    have to make sure we do not use any of the GNU source files (.h or .c),
    but I guess it wouldn't be too much work to write a few .h files
    with the declarations of the functions the GNU source files use.

Actually, I'm all for "1". I'm lasy.
  

-- 
joost witteveen, joostje@debian.org

Potentially offensive files, part 5: /dev/random.
`head -c 4 /dev/random` may print 4-letter words (once every approx 4e8 tries).


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .