Am Montag, dem 21.02.2022 um 00:55 -0300 schrieb Joao Eriberto Mota Filho: > Package: docbook > Version: 4.5-9 > Severity: normal > X-Debbugs-Cc: Mark W. Eichin <eichin@thok.org>, Adam Di Carlo > <aph@debian.org>, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) <jdassen@debian.org>, Yann Dirson > <dirson@debian.org>, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>, Daniel Leidert > (dale) <daniel.leidert@wgdd.de>, Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>, Mathieu > Malaterre <malat@debian.org>, Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> > > The current packaging license (GPL-2+) is incompatible with upstream > licensing (DocBook License). It is a hampering condition to submit patches > from Debian to the upstream. Can you elaborate on the problems you observe? The docbook* packages are not supposed to differ from upstream, so bug fixes should always go back to upstream. There is no interest to create our own variant. There was just one problem: issues in older releases don't get fixed by upstream anymore - or better: upstream fixed those issues and then released the fixes with the next version. They don't touch older releases. That's why we have a set of patches to fix problems in e.g. DocBook 4.3. Those patches will not be accepted by upstream anyway, so there is IMHO no issue having those under GPL. > I would like to change the packaging licensing to 'DocBook' and I will > wait 15 days to know if anyone has any objection. You want to relicense the code because you don't like the license, and you want to do it without permission of all the authors/contributors that added their work under the GPL-2+ by delcaring them not to answer to silently agreeing? Interesting take on relicensing, purely illegal though ... Daniel -- Regards, Daniel Leidert <dleidert@debian.org> | https://www.wgdd.de/ GPG-Key RSA4096 / BEED4DED5544A4C03E283DC74BCD0567C296D05D GPG-Key ED25519 / BD3C132D8B3805D1808123AB7ACE00941E338C78 https://www.fiverr.com/dleidert https://www.patreon.com/join/dleidert
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part