Re: One noob, 3 orphan source packages, 14 .deb, looking for a sponsor
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Regardless, you just express the full set of licenses in
> > debian/copyright. The effective set of licenses of the binary isn't
> > something you have to deal with (luckily).
>
> The FSF would contradict. If Debian links GPLv2+ libisoburn with
> GPLv3+ libreadline and distributes the result, then this result must
> be GPLv3+.
The result must satisfy the requirements of GPL-3+ when distributed. It
does not change the actual license of the source code of libisoburn or
libreadline, though.
[...]
> So i have meanwhile decided to write in debian/copyright:
>
> License: GPL-3
> The source code is GPL-2-or-later. By linking with GPL-3 licensed
> libreadline.so.6 the resulting binaries become GPL-3 licensed, too.
> On Debian systems the full text of the GNU General Public License can
> be found in the /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3 file.
This is wrong. The license of the source code of libisoburn is GPL-2+.
The license of the resultant binary is effectively the intersection of
all of the terms of the appropriate licenses, which should just be
GPL-3+. [Modulo local copyright law, of course.]
debian/copyright documents the license of the source code, not license
the resultant binary. [Obviously, there are requirements on the
resultant binary, but debian/copyright is not the place to document
them.]
--
Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
The carbon footprint of a single human being is enormous.
If you think about it, your honour,
I'm an environmentalist.
-- a softer world #283
http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=283
Reply to: