On 02/06/2008, Craig Small wrote: > > 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.
It's not needed to go that path. Providing with manpages, or any patches along the Debian packages would make them (by default) fall under the GPL license, which then might be (maybe not problematic but at least a) special case from an upstream point of view. That might be an extra license to list, an extra pain for another packager of another distro, etc. (I recently wrote some copyright files, and I really hate multiple licenses when a single one would have been enough). Releasing the packaging under the same license as upstream (unless releasing under an even more liberal license) really sounds like easier for everyone. > > My suggestion is to have the debian packaging license be the same as > > the upstream source by default. > > It will remain GPLed, [...] Too bad. Mraw, KiBi.
pgpbrLmkdKV4E.pgp
Description: PGP signature
