There are a few lawyers here, myself included, though I’m not sure anyone on list actually has an attorney-client relationship with the distro or its makers (and to be clear, I have no such relationship and nothing I say here should be construed as legal advice).
All of that said, the suggestion to use an older readline version with GPLv2 or GPLv2+ licensing when building with GPLv2-only packages seems appropriate to me. Happy New Year everyone! Best, Jim Sent from my iPhone, apologies for misspellings, odd autocorrects, misplaced edits and other randomness. > On Jan 2, 2021, at 2:48 AM, Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 at 00:48:43 +0100, Bastian Germann wrote: >> There are some packages with GPL-2-only licensed binaries that link with >> GPL-3+ licensed libreadline.so.8. I do not know Debian-legal's current >> interpretation on that matter. > > debian-legal is purely advisory, does not control what is in Debian, and > does not necessarily contain any actual lawyers. The archive administrators > <ftpmas...@debian.org> are the group that controls what is and isn't > accepted into Debian. > > smcv > (not a lawyer either) >
