On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 09:55:47AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > unfortunately I'm not sure this is enough for ftpmasters... > > I'm afraid we need an official tarball with the fixed licenses, otherwise > they won't be coherent license-wise. > > this seems to be a blocker for now.
What's the problem? 1. A statement from the copyright holder is enough. The license doesn't need to be in the tarball -- Fernando can include the statement in debian/copyright. 2. Even without the clarification, the only thing the old licenses forbid is putting additions (such as the packaging) under GPL3 or some other license not compatible with GPL2-only. 3. Other than compatibility with other licenses, no one really cares about confusion wrt GPL2 vs GPL2+. They don't conflict, all we lose is the permission to use the code under a higher version of GPL. As long as debian/copyright assumes the worse option, I don't think any ftpmaster would reject. (Points 2. and 3. being moot now that Alexander, the copyright holder, spoke.) -- A tit a day keeps the vet away.
