[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: hp2pbm_2.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

Scripsit Camm Maguire <camm@enhanced.com>

> Again, unfortunately, the wording I proposed could be interpreted to
> mean that the author only wishes Debian, and not those receiving
> software distributed by Debian, to have access to the code under the
> GPL.  To my understanding, this is not what the author intended.

I agree with that (both sentences).

> Copyright:
> 	hp2pbm is specially licensed to the Debian project under the terms of
> 	the GPL.  Commercial entities wishing to license hp2pbm under
> 	different terms must receive separate permission from the author.

My understanding is that what this wording was meant to communicate is

| Copyright:
|   Program X is covered by the GPL (blah blah standard Debian blurp
|   about finding the master copy of the GPL).
|   Note that if you look at the upstream site you'll find a different,
|   non-free, license. That does not mean that we're lying when we
|   say this is GPL'ed: we did talk to the author and got his OK
|   to change the license to GPL. (Due to the section 6 of the GPL
|   this OK automatically covers anyone downstream from us, too).


I think that should be perfectly fine for main. Effectively this sets
up a dual-license scheme, and as long as one of the licenses is free
all is well.

I don't think the part about needing a separate permission from
the author to use a different license needs to be in the copyright
file - that goes for every GPL'ed package.

Henning Makholm                   "Det er sympatisk du håner dig selv. Fuldt
                           berettiget. Men det gør dig ikke til en kristen."

Reply to: