Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 09:31:50PM -0300, Fernando Toledo wrote:
> El 29/04/16 a las 18:31, Adam Borowski escribió:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:45:27PM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> >> licensecheck *
> >> shows the license of some files as GPL-2+ not GPL-2
> >
> > It looks like there's a mismatch:
> >
> > README says:
> > # Copyright 2003 by Alexander K.nig - alex@lisas.de
> > # License: GPL V2 - see the file COPYING
> > (COPYING is the text of GPL-2)
> >
> > but, aseqjoy.c says:
> > # or (at your option) any later version.
> >
> > Too bad, while it's the only C source, there's one more copyrightable file,
> > aseqjoy.1.in, which doesn't embed a license statement and thus is covered by
> > the README.
> >
> > So unless you contact the author or rewrite the manpage, the effective
> > license is GPL-2 only.
> >
>
> if i understand, if i change the debian/* to GPL-2+ will solved only the
> patches issues? and still have problem with the upstream man file?
> my own patch just is trivial and solve spell lintian warning only.
GPL-2 is compatible with GPL-2+, so that's enough.
> i just send a email to the upstream author with this comments also.
> will need to release a new tarball with this changes?
Clarifying the license would be nice, but is not required: while it's not
sure what the author meant, there is one safe option: assuming GPL-2.
Of course, that means you can't combine it with GPL-3 patches or packaging.
Unless you hear back from the author soon, I'd recommend using GPL-2+ for
the packaging. That's compatible with GPL-2, GPL-3, GPL-3+, or even future
GPL-4 or GPL-65535.
--
A tit a day keeps the vet away.
Reply to: