Quoting Vasudev Kamath (2016-03-27 12:36:44) > I'm trying to package newer version of fontforge and I see this in > LICENSE file first para. > >> FontForge is available as a whole under the terms of the [GNU >> GPL](http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html), version 3 or any later >> version. However, almost all of its parts are available under the >> "revised BSD license" >> ([pdf](http://www.law.yi.org/~sfllaw/talks/bsd.pdf)) because >> FontForge was mostly written by George Williams, using that license. > > In my opinion the Licensing should dual licensed under GPL-v3 and > Revised BSD. Do you guys see it other way?.. Dual-licensing commonly means "either or", not "and". Also, when you "and" a permissive and strong copleft license, result is only the strong copyleft license (when they are compatible at all). In short: Above license is simply "GPL-3+". > As per Dave Crossland on this comment ¹ He explicitly says Debian has > to redistribute it under GPL-v3. So I would be happy to get teams > opinion here. ...but beware that you and Dave are talking about the _effective_ license of the project as a _whole_. In debian/copyright you _can_ include such effective "computed" license - in the _header_ section when using machine-readable format 1.0. You should (but arguably only that, not must) still cover licensing of each individual piece of upstream project - where it makes sense to document the pieces that may still be used under a more permissive license. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature