Markus Koschany <a...@debian.org> writes: > Ok I can see the misunderstanding now. The above statement would be > incorrect for freeorion because it translates to:
> You are allowed to use the files under GPL-2 and Permissive-License-1 > and Permissive-License-2 and ... > But this is not true. Not all files are dual/triple/-licensed. Actually > no file is even dual-licensed. That's not what "and" means. That would be "or". "and" means you have to follow all of those licenses when using a work composed of those files, which sounds correct to me. It's not correct if you take one of the files from the group in isolation; in that case, you probably only have to follow one of the licenses. But that gets back to the question of just what we're supposed to be documenting in debian/copyright. > But if there is even one file which is differently licensed like > Files: src/parser.c > Copyright: 2009, John Jay > License: Expat > you have to mention that in d/copyright. Otherwise your copyright file > would be incomplete/incorrect under the current Policy requirements. > This is reject-worthy. Policy does not require that. ftpmaster might, which is not quite the same thing. > However upstream could simply state that all software is GPL-2+ licensed > because the Expat license grants them the right to sublicense parser.c. The Expat license grants *anyone* the right to do that, so the Debian package maintainer can do this just as easily as upstream can. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
