Re: apache2 and gpl2+

[Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org>]

On 01/09/14 20:03, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> What would I put into debian/copyright? GPL2+ (which is what upstream uses but
> is unredistributable) or GPL3+?

If it was me, I'd state the facts:

    Format:
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/

    Files: *
    Copyright:
     © 2000 Alice Smith
     © 2010 Bob Jones
    License: GPL-2+

    Files: lib/fuzzylite/*
    Copyright:
     © 1995 Fred Bloggs
     © 2005 Jane Doe
    License: Apache-2.0

    License: GPL-2+
     blah blah blah or any later version blah blah blah common-licenses

    License: Apache-2.0
     blah blah blah except in compliance with the License blah blah blah
     common-licenses

(but with the actual copyright holders and license grants instead :-)

and let the reader draw their own conclusions. If you were feeling
explanatory, you could put something like this in the first paragraph,
the one with the Format:

Comment: The effective license for the binaries is (GPL-3+ and
 Apache-2.0) since GPL-2 and Apache-2.0 are not compatible

Or if you don't like the structured copyright file format, do the same
thing with less syntax and more text.

    S