On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 03:24:58PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Hm unsure. It really depends on how far you acknowledge the > virality of the GPL – Debian, AFAIK, tends to go more with > the FSF’s extreme interpretation… I don't think my view is out of line with the FSF's. This applies to source code for the covered work. The covered work *is* the build-script in this case. The upstream code is EPL, which has no clause that requires the build-scripts to be under a compatable license. In addition, I don't think that using the build-scripts creates a derivative work, so I don't think the resulting work would be GPL'd just because of the build scripts. As such, I don't see a problem, unless someone points out something I've overlooked here. > But if the new maintainer is willing to completely remove the > old stuff that’s probably the best outcome, considering the > old maintainer is unwilling to cooperate. Perhaps, but I don't think it's a problem, so long as the debian/patches are licensed EPL or more permissive. There are oodles of packages that have GPL-3+'d debian/* with a non-GPL upstream license. > (Personally I think debian/ should be permissive, especially > if there’s not too much “magic” in it… and others even think > there should be no magic in it…) I don't disagree, but I don't think this is inherently an issue. > > bye, > //mirabilos 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