On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 01:06:27PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Paul Tagliamonte <paultag <at> debian.org> writes: > > > 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. > > Unfortunately, GPLv3 considers build scripts (thus, d/rules plus the > input for the declarative dh* commands, plus d/control which is parsed > by some, etc.) to be part of the “complete” source code. > > This means that even the previous maintainer was unable to legally > upload the package with debian/* being GPLv3, unless he added an > exception. This is a GPL restriction. Since the upstream code isn't GPL, why are you using a GPL argument about build scripts? -- in theory this would apply to build scripts for the GPLv3'd debian/* files, but there are none that I know of :) > Make out of that, consequences-wise, whatever you want… > just saying… there have been precedences of upstream being > forced to relicence because they have distributed something > they couldn’t under the choices they made themselves. > > bye, > //mirabilos > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > Archive: [🔎] loom.20130927T150424-495@post.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] loom.20130927T150424-495@post.gmane.org > -- .''`. 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