Bug#817005: RFS: aseqjoy/0.0.1-1 [ITP]
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 09:55:47AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> unfortunately I'm not sure this is enough for ftpmasters...
>
> I'm afraid we need an official tarball with the fixed licenses, otherwise
> they won't be coherent license-wise.
>
> this seems to be a blocker for now.
What's the problem?
1. A statement from the copyright holder is enough. The license doesn't
need to be in the tarball -- Fernando can include the statement in
debian/copyright.
2. Even without the clarification, the only thing the old licenses forbid
is putting additions (such as the packaging) under GPL3 or some other
license not compatible with GPL2-only.
3. Other than compatibility with other licenses, no one really cares about
confusion wrt GPL2 vs GPL2+. They don't conflict, all we lose is the
permission to use the code under a higher version of GPL. As long as
debian/copyright assumes the worse option, I don't think any ftpmaster would
reject.
(Points 2. and 3. being moot now that Alexander, the copyright holder,
spoke.)
--
A tit a day keeps the vet away.
Reply to: