On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:52:22 -0700 Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 08:07:17AM +0200, Ricardo Mones wrote: > > > Whether a GPLv3 work is distributable compliant with Debian's own DFSG > > > is a different matter -- and if the answer is "no", that doesn't make > > > it *illegal* for you to distribute it. > > > Indeed, but even if it's legally redistributable it may not agree to > > the DFSG, so would not qualify to be uploaded into main category of the > > archive, which is my original worry. From your answer seems this is a > > pending question, which doesn't help me to decide. > > > FWIW I'm not asking because of a theoretical concern: the claws-mail > > upstream has moved license to GPLv3, and the next version will be > > probably released in a couple of weeks. > > There have been GPLv3 packages in unstable since the day after the license > was released, and there has been analysis of the license on this list that > one of the ftpmasters participated in. Sorry, I should have found this in the archives. > Barring any adverse license interactions with related packages, GPLv3 is > fine for main. Yep, though luckily for me upstream has already solved this: the plugin interface incorporates license check and incompatible licensed plugins are refused to load by the main program. Thanks for all your answers, -- Ricardo Mones http://people.debian.org/~mones «You will be awarded a medal for disregarding safety in saving someone.»
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature