Hello Elena,
thanks for your comments.
Am Freitag, den 21.11.2014, 13:14 +0100 schrieb Elena ``of Valhalla'':
> On 2014-11-21 at 12:33:58 +0100, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote:
> > > - it's simpler if your packaging has the same license as he upstream
> > > code. Here in particular your license (GPL3) is less permissive
> > > than upstream's (BSD3) so it can causes problems I guess.
> >
> > I always use GLP-3+ for debian/* and set the license of debian/patches/*
> > to the license of the source file(s). So I don't see any problems.
>
> Wouldn't that means that the debian package can only be distributed/used
> under GPL-3+, and thus e.g. a library can't be linked from / used
> in something with a noncompatible license (including GPL-2), even if
> the upstream program allowed it?
>
> (Assuming that there is something copyrightable in debian/ minus
> debian/patches/, and for other packages that the upstream license
> was compatible with GPL-3+ in the first place)
>
I think not. The same issue I had some times ago on d-mentors[1][2].
> --
> Elena ``of Valhalla''
>
>
CU
Jörg
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2014/09/msg00631.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2014/10/msg00000.html
--
pgp Fingerprint: 7D13 3C60 0A10 DBE1 51F8 EBCB 422B 44B0 BE58 1B6E
pgp Key: BE581B6E
CAcert Key S/N: 0E:D4:56
Jörg Frings-Fürst
D-54526 Niederkail
Threema: SYR8SJXB
IRC: j_f-f@freenode.net
j_f-f@oftc.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part