On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 06:37:45PM +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > By default, the templates for copyright set the packaging stuff to be > licensed under GPL: That's correct.
> libraries, this will mean that, even though the original library could > perfectly be linked to other packages, even those with non-GPL-compatible > license, that won't happen in this case. The packaging stuff being GPL means > that the whole of the package, and whatever links with it either statically > or dynamically, will have to be GPL too. Nothing dh-makes should be *linked* to a library. If someone finds some package that has such a torturous license that it cannot even redistribute it with programs licensed under GPL then I would strongly suggest its a problem with that license than the packaged stuff. > My suggestion is to have the debian packaging license be the same as the > upstream source by default. It will remain GPLed, there are exceptions in the package, mainly around the rules file, where this isnt the case. If there is a specific file that could cause problems (leaving aside the theoretical crazy license scenario) then let's have a look at that. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
