On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:36:49AM -0500, John Lindgren wrote: > Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > > Both BSD 3-clause and BSD 2-clause allow relicensing as GPL, thus so > > long as the licensing terms are complied with correctly BSD code can > > perpetually and unidirectionally flow to GPL projects. > > Yes, I agree. It's perfectly okay for the Debian package(s) to be > distributed as GPL, *as long as* the original BSD license text is still > retained. > > > I'm also unsure whether the patch > > that changes the user-visible bits and the out-of-date > > debian/copyright outweigh the 2-clause license that wasn't stripped > > from the headers of various files. > > Speaking for myself as upstream project lead, I'm not worried about > the legal status of already-built packages, but I would prefer that the > upstream (BSD 2-clause) license remain user-visible in future Debian > builds. The simplest way to achieve this would be to remove > use-system-licenses.patch and let the GUI again display > /usr/share/audacious/COPYING as the upstream version does.
This will be easier to do. > Alternatively, debian/copyright could be updated to include the full > text of the upstream license, plus any Debian-specific bits (packaging > copyrights, etc.), and the patch could be updated so that the GUI > displays the installed version of that file instead (I think that would > be /usr/share/doc/audacious/copyright?) Thank you for your blessing on doing it this way. If Debian was/is relicensing as GPL in a non-reversible way then this the way it would/might have to be done. > Francesco Poli wrote: > > > The Audacious upstream developers may be willing to help, by clarifying > > any doubts upon request. > > Yes, for sure. Please see my question about a missing copyright holder; I paused my review at this point, so there might be other examples. > > If that is deemed to be needed or useful, it could be feasible to also > > fix the debian/copyright file for audacious version 3.7.2 in a Debian > > stable update (and possibly also address the same issue for > > oldstable)... On the other hand, this extra effort could perhaps be > > considered not worth doing. > > For my part, I'm not worried about the stable+oldstable packages being > fixed, only that the problem is resolved in a new unstable upload going > forward. I think that the other upstream developers would agree. Whew, thank you, that makes things easier for everyone :-) > Thank you both for the prompt reply and good discussion! You're welcome! Thank you for reaching out. Sincerely, Nicholas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
