On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:18:58AM -0400, Miles Lubin wrote: > Dear debian-legalers, Yo, Miles! > - The debian directory had no explicit license mentioned in the > copyright file. It was pointed out by Paul Tagliamonte that the Oh yes, I remember this. > previous maintainer(s) must agree to the change in license. > - Soeren Sonnenburg, the previous maintainer, has insisted that his > work be licensed under GPLv3 exclusively. :\ > What's the best way to resolve this issue? In general I see two > different classes of files in the debian directory as they might > relate to the license incompatibility. > > 1) Debian helper files (rules, watch, control, copyright, changelog) > which are not part of the distributed package. > 2) Patches, manpages, etc. which are part of the distributed package. So, the way *I* see this is so long as the GPL code isn't being put into a combined work with anything (e.g. GPL'd patches), it *should* be OK. I couldn't imagine the case to be made against shipping CC-BY images in a GPL source package, so I don't see why we can't have different conflicting licenses in the same tarball (unless the license stipulates such, in which case, I'm not sure of the DFSG freeness, see point 9) It's a skitch hazy, but I don't think there's an issue with distributing CC-BY and GPL code in the same tarball -- the only issue is this *MAY* result in GPL issues if *upstream* is GPL, if you've checked out some of the CDDL build-scripts + GPL'd source code flames. I've not looked into the details of those issues, however, so I couldn't speak to them. Hopefully you can find a good solution! Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature