[Please continue to Cc me on replies. Thanks] -=| Walter Landry, Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 05:08:14AM -0800 |=- > MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote: > > Damyan Ivanov <dmn@debian.org> wrote: > > > Most of the code is licensed under "the same terms as Perl > > > itself", > > [...] > > > In addition to that, some icons are licensed under LGPL-3+, and some > > > more icons are licensed under GPL-2. > > > > > > From how I understand it, if we choose GPL-2 for the main code, that > > > still leaves the combination of GPL-2 (code and some .png icons) and > > > LGPL-3+ (.png icons). Is such aggregation OK? > > > > If it's mere aggregation, I believe each stays under their own licence. > > Just to be clear, if it is not mere aggregation, then it is not ok. > If the LGPL-3+ icons are required for the program to operate > correctly, that is a hint that licenses need to be compatible with > GPL-2. Reading GPL-2, "mere aggregation" is when two independent "works" sit on the same "volume of a storage or distribution medium". In the case I am after, both "works" are in the same upstream tarball, and in the same .deb. The files are separate, i.e. no compilation in the C source --> object code sense is taking place. The icons are loaded at runtime and used in the user interface. Does this sound like "a mere aggregation"? -- dam JabberID: dam@jabber.minus273.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature