So I stumbled upon this rather interesting case of a software licensed by
The release notes for 3.0. r5 also mentions:
This program is licensed under GPL-2. Please note also that if you're
using the program for a paid or free public service you need mention
where you got this program from.
It seems that the author is trying to prevent people from setting up webpages using this
software as a backend without crediting it. It seems like a reasonable think to ask for.
My question is regarding DFSG compliance around this, I believe there is nothing wrong with
it, but the fact that upstream expose is as GPL-2 seems a little misleading, as it's not plain GPL-2 and I think we should change something in d/copyright to address this.
Are you aware of other software that are in a similar situation? I would like to see what
d/copyright looks like. For this case the package was accepted by ftp-master with a
d/copyright that states it as GPL-2.
Samuel Henrique <samueloph>