[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL "+" question

I'm probably wrong, but the code that was originally GPLv2+ remains licensed under the GPLv2 *in addition* to the GPLv3 that the overall package is licensed under.

The GPLv2 states that:

'if the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions *either* of that version *or* of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation' (my emphasis)

and this seems to imply that the end user can choose which licence suits them.

However, if Emmanuel Bertin's code is specifically licensed as GPLv3 only then it needs to be made clear that this is the case where applicable - the fact that this code is GPLv3 only ought not affect the fact that the other original files may be GPLv2+.

As said above I'm probably wrong, but at least that's the way I see it!


On 29 May 2015 08:32, Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi, 
> I just had a discussion with an ftp-master who rejected one of my 
> packages. The package in question is "missfits". It contains a 
> directory, src/wcs/ with files that were originally released by Mark 
> Calabretta under LGPL-2+, but changed by the upstream author (Emmanuel 
> Bertin) and released in the package under GPL-3+. 
> debian/copyright currently mentions only GPL-3+ for the whole package. 
> The ftp-master now asked me to add GPL-2+ for these files to 
> debian/copyright. But I think that this would be wrong, since the files 
> under src/wcs are not distributable under GPL-2+ (because they contain 
> GPL-3+ code from Emmanuel Bertin). 
> Do I miss an important point here? 
> Best regards 
> Ole 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org 
> Archive: [🔎] ytzmw0nn8jn.fsf@news.ole.ath.cx">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] ytzmw0nn8jn.fsf@news.ole.ath.cx 

Reply to: