On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 08:59:14AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 11:52:13AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > Eriberto Mota <eribe...@debian.org> writes: > > > > --- > > > (C) 2007-2009 Lluís Batlle i Rossell > > > Please find the license in the provided COPYING file. > > > --- > > > That is an assertion of copyright without a grant of license. > > Nonsense. There is no ambiguity here at all, it tells you exactly where to > find the license. > > However, you are right that it is *not* a correct license grant for GPLv2+, > only for GPL2. This is inconsistent with the license statement on the > website. > > > I advise you make efforts to convince the copyright holder to follow the > > guidance in the COPYING document on “How to Apply These Terms to Your > > New Programs”. What they have is needlessly ambiguous. > > Agreed. Since the website expresses intent to license under GPLv2+, they > should include this in the source files as well. > > Absent a clarification from upstream, I would take the conservative approach > of treating this as a GPL2 (not GPL2+) work for debian/copyright.
Also note that the final part of GPL 2 section 9 [G1] states: ... " If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." I suppose that can be an incentive to add an appropriate license grant. [G1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#section9 -- Josué M. Abarca S. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150502234046.gh1...@debian.local.net
