On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 06:27:35PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:07:56 +0200
> Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > * Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org>, 2010-04-28, 17:48:
> > >> After checking a scattering of random packages, I happened across
> > >> one example of this already in Debian testing: socat. It is
> > >> GPLv2-only, and is linked against GPLv3 libreadline6 in testing.
> > >> (filed bug 579494).
> > >
> > >Umm:
> > >
> > >http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/s/socat/current/copyright
> > >
> > > This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> > > modify
> > >it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > >the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at
> > >your option) any later version.
> >
> > I would assume that's rather a mistake in debian/copyright. README is
> > very clear:
>
> Why assume an error? The COPYING file in the source is GPLv2 or later
> *and* the source code refers to COPYING, not README.
>
> /* source: xiowrite.c */
> /* Copyright Gerhard Rieger 2001-2008 */
> /* Published under the GNU General Public License V.2, see file COPYING
> */
>
> That isn't a full licence declaration, those seeking a full declaration
> are explicitly referred to COPYING and COPYING says GPLv2 or later.
[...]
COPYING contains the standard preamble and the recommendation to licence
your software under 'GPLv2 or later', but these are not the licence. The
work itself (the source code) specifies v2, and no amount of wishful
thinking is going to change this.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
- Albert Camus