On 2017-01-11 18:59+0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 06:32:59PM +0100, Félix Sipma wrote: >> On 2017-01-11 11:27+0100, Adam Borowski wrote: >>> While from technical point of view it looks good, I'm afraid there's a >>> license problem: you're mixing GPL-2 and GPL-3+. I believe this is not a >>> problem between symbol sets -- there's mere aggregation without derivation >>> or linking, but this can't be said for packaging. >> >> There's a discussion about the licensing there: >> https://github.com/Xaviju/inkscape-open-symbols/issues/61 >> >> I'm not sure about how inkscape-open-symbols could be licensed (for now it's >> GPL-2, so it's problematic, isn't it?)... Sure, it is a collection, but then, >> what would be the difference with the Debian package? > > The Debian packaging consists of nothing but a makefile (debian/rules) and a > few assorted bits of metadata. Hardly copyrightable, but above the commonly > quoted threshold of copyrightability (~10 lines). > > I might be wrong about the ftpmasters' point of view -- might be good to > hear a clarification -- but I for one don't see a difference between > aggregating two unrelated packages with conflicting licenses in one iso > image, vs aggregating two unrelated symbol sets with conflicting licenses in > one package, as long as they're clearly not derived from one another nor > linked/etc. > > So the only issue I see is license compatibility between the packaging > and every of included symbol sets separately. And here, any license > compatible with both GPL-2 and GPL-3+ will do. So, for you, if the inkscape-open-symbols is licensed under MIT (upstream intends to do that), is there a problem or not?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature