On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 06:32:59PM +0100, Félix Sipma wrote: > On 2017-01-11 11:27+0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > While from technical point of view it looks good, I'm afraid there's a > > license problem: you're mixing GPL-2 and GPL-3+. I believe this is not a > > problem between symbol sets -- there's mere aggregation without derivation > > or linking, but this can't be said for packaging. > > There's a discussion about the licensing there: > https://github.com/Xaviju/inkscape-open-symbols/issues/61 > > I'm not sure about how inkscape-open-symbols could be licensed (for now it's > GPL-2, so it's problematic, isn't it?)... Sure, it is a collection, but then, > what would be the difference with the Debian package?
The Debian packaging consists of nothing but a makefile (debian/rules) and a few assorted bits of metadata. Hardly copyrightable, but above the commonly quoted threshold of copyrightability (~10 lines). I might be wrong about the ftpmasters' point of view -- might be good to hear a clarification -- but I for one don't see a difference between aggregating two unrelated packages with conflicting licenses in one iso image, vs aggregating two unrelated symbol sets with conflicting licenses in one package, as long as they're clearly not derived from one another nor linked/etc. So the only issue I see is license compatibility between the packaging and every of included symbol sets separately. And here, any license compatible with both GPL-2 and GPL-3+ will do. Meow! -- Autotools hint: to do a zx-spectrum build on a pdp11 host, type: ./configure --host=zx-spectrum --build=pdp11
